Legislative Report Session 2002 Legislative Wrap-Up by J. Mitchell Lambros


J. Mitchell Lambros (Lambros & Lambros, Cockeysville) received his J.D. from Duke University School of Law and is an Officer on MTLA’s Board of Governors serving as the Vice President. He is a member of MTLA’s President’s Club as a Founder and is a member of the Executive Committee. Mr. Lambros is Chair of the Legislative Committee, a trustee of the MTLA-PAC, and served as the Editor-in- Chief for Trial Reporter (1997-1999). His practice concentrates in personal injury, medical malpractice, workers’ compensation and social security disability.


I had the privilege this year of chair- ing the Legislative Committee for the second time. Our organization put forth an outstanding effort during the past leg- islative session. Unfortunately, when all was said and done, our efforts turned out largely to be a trip on the hamster wheel with a few exceptions. The purpose of this piece is to summarize the efforts which were put forth and to summarize the results.


Family Exclusion Our lead bill this year was the Family


Exclusion bill. A tremendous amount of effort went into this bill. Our three lob- byists, Dan Doherty, Mindy Binderman, and Michael Arrington put forth a great effort on this bill. Outstanding effort also was put forth by President Bruce Plaxen and legislative committee member, Matt Paavola.


Jennings held the exclusion invalid since it was not provided for in Maryland’s com- pulsive insurance scheme, but State Farm v. Nationwide held the exclusion enforce- able above Maryland’s 20/40 mandatory limits, arguing that “parties are free to contract as they wish.” In defense of the Court of Appeals, its members likely did not envision that every carrier in our state would henceforth refuse to offer any policy of motor vehicle insurance that did not contain a family exclusion.


That Special mention also goes to


MTLA member Peter Holland, and his clients, Mr. &Mrs. Colburn, MTLA Board member Evelyn Darden and her clients, Mr. & Mrs. Mayne, and MTLA member Keith Franz and his clients Mr. and Mrs. McGonnell. Unfortunately, for the second year in a row, we got a good bill out of the Senate only to see it die in Chairman Michael Busch’s House Eco- nomic Matters Committee on the last day of the session. In Maryland, a claim for personal in-


jury by a family member residing in the same household as the named insured is limited to only $20,000 coverage because of the family exclusion. As a result, if two married couples are going out to dinner, it would be wise for them to take two cars and not have married partners travel in the same car. The absurdity is heightened further by the fact that while the cover- age is limited, the liability is not. The family member can still obtain and col- lect a judgment for full damages even though there is only 20/40 coverage. This problem situation has its roots in two Court of Appeals cases, Jennings v. GEICO, 302 Md. 352 (1985) and State Farm v. Nationwide, 307 Md.631 (1986).


Summer 2002


hardly sounds like freedom of contract from the standpoint of insureds. Also, the State Farm v. Nationwide under/over mimimums distinction is an orphan in light of the Court of Appeals decision in West American v. Popa, 352 Md. 455 (1998), where the Court declined to ex- tend that distinction outside of the household exclusion. The family exclusion bill was cross-


filed as House Bill 633 and Senate Bill 273. All that these bills sought was to require insurance carriers in the State to offer coverage equal to the policy limits for family members. It was sponsored in the House by Delegates Krysik, Taylor, Minnick, and Kirk.


In the Senate, the


bill was sponsored by the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Tommy Bromwell, and the vice-chair Senator Art Dorman.


Our lead lobbyist, Dan


Doherty met at the beginning of the ses- sion with Chairman Bromwell. Chairman Bromwell reviewed the lan- guage of the bill and specifically approved it and gave his commitment of support. The bill was first heard in the House


Economic Matters Committee. Testi- mony was provided at that hearing by Mr. & Mrs. Colburn, as well as their attor- ney, MTLA member Peter Holland. The Colburns are a retired couple. Mr. Colburn was driving with his wife in the vehicle when he made a mistake. She was seriously injured. Her recovery was lim- ited to $20,000 in light of the family exclusion provision contained in their policy. Mr. Colburn served for many years in Annapolis and was well known by


Trial Reporter


many of the legislatures on the House Economic Matters Committee. The Colburns’ testimony was compelling, and we were cautiously optimistic about the bill’s chances. The House Economic Matters Com- mittee, like many legislative committees in Annapolis, has idiosyncratic proce- dures, and in their committee, bills are referred to “work groups.” The work groups are, in affect, another choke point in the legislative process. The House Bill 633 was send to a work group which con- sisted of seven members, two of which, Tony Fulton and Anthony Brown, held the balance of power on this bill. We needed one or the other to get the bill out clean. At the work group meeting, we lost Delegate Brown, who proposed amendments which gutted House Bill 633. The amendments in effect still re- stricted the bill to an offering of coverage, but only would have require insurers to offer coverage for so-called economic loses. By definition, however, economic losses would exclude anything covered by a collateral source and also would exclude future lost wages. Additionally, it ap- peared that the amendments would also, arguably, preclude recovery for non-eco- nomic damages for the initial $20,000 of coverage.


In effect, under Delegate


Brown’s amendments, persons would have the option of paying more money to, and in some cases, get less coverage. It was a lousy form of no fault coverage that re- quired proof of fault. Delegate Brown’s amendments were very odd since he spoke out in favor of coverage for non-economic damages at the time of the full hearing before the House Economic Matters Committee. Clearly, politics was in play. This left the balance of power in the hands of Delegate Tony Fulton, who un- fortunately, despite heavy efforts by our lobbyist, particularly Michael Arrington, voted against us by supporting Delegate brown’s amendments. The pressure point for Delegate Fulton apparent was Piper


(Continued on page 30) 29


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  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68