Bills which would provide for cover- age for family members equal to the policy limits in the absence of a written waiver were cross-filed in both the House and Senate. The bills went to the House Eco- nomic Matters Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. The bill in the Sen- ate Finance Committee was amended to a bill requiring a mandatory offering of coverage for family members equal to the policy limits and was passed at the behest of its chairman, Senator Thomas Bromwell. The bill then went to the House Economic Matters Committee where it came out of its subcommittee on insurance with the support of that subcommittee’s chariman Michael Gor- don and sponsor Carolyn Krysiak. Unfortunately, in a close vote, the full committee rejected the bill the last day of the session. We are grateful to the efforts of Sena-
tor Bromwell and Delegate Michael Gordon and Carolyn Krysiak. Despite the loss, we feel that we have a solid foun- dation for pursuing a family exclusion bill next year and will be doing so with great vigor.
Other Matters
Many bills which would have hurt our clients were opposed by us and ultimately failed. These included House Bill 48, which would have precluded evidence in civil actions of “benevolent gestures”, House Bill 714, the “no pay no play” bill which would have precluded motorists late on paying their own insurance policy premiums from recovering non-economic damages, and House Bill 1149, which would have prohibited plaintiffs in unin- sured motorist actions from advising the jury that the case they were deciding was against a motor vehicle insurer. There lit- erally were scores of bills that the MTLA legislative committee and lobbyists fol- lowed, and attended hearings for during the course of the session.
Next Session
The legislative committee is being con- stituted now for the coming session. We will be meeting shortly to discuss the agenda for the upcoming year. Given the current composition of the Senate Judi- cial Proceedings Committee, and Senator Sfikas’ position on comparative negli- gence, the prospects for pursuing a comparative negligence bill this year ap- pear problematic. However, the prospects for pursuing a family exclusion bill are quite encouraging.
The legislative committee will be seek- ing out input from the MTLA members
Summer 2001 Trial Reporter 15
regarding their legislative concern. Of critical importance, we will also be seek- ing examples of persons harmed by unfair doctrines in Maryland law from our MTLA members. The Johnsons’ story is
the reason that the parent child immu- nity bill has become law, and it is apparent that legislators need to hear from real per- sons who are harmed by the current incongruities in our law.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56