Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Maryland Injury Lawyer BlogPermissive Use of an Automobile
When an insurance company gets a claim, the first thing it does is look for ways to deny the claim before getting to the merits. I don't say this derisively. This is how the game is played.
One insanely overused method of avoiding getting to the merits of a case is claiming the defendant driver was not a permissive user. Insurance companies often take remarkably strained views of what is required to allow permission for another to use the owner's vehicle.
This morning, in Agency Insurance v. State Farm, a wrongful death car accident claim, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals gave Maryland insurance companies a little bit more ammo for this defense. The opinion was written by Judge Irma S. Raker, one of the more conservative judges on the Maryland Court of Appeals who is now retired and was specially assigned to the CSA. The case involved two passengers who were killed in an accident in Frederick county. The battle between these insurance companies was over permissive use. The court found that the vehicle owner's daughter, a senior in high school who was killed in the accident, did not have permission to give permission to her boyfriend to use the vehicle.
But here's the thing: the boyfriend had used the vehicle before with the owner's permission. The only argument State Farm had was that there was no specific permission in this case. The only person who could have rebutted that testimony would have been the owner's daughter who was killed.
I believe the court slices too thinly over the question of whether the daughter's boyfriend had permission to drive her mom's car. Because there are too many variables at play. When she allowed the boy to drive the car before, was it made into a big deal or was it a "sure, of course" type response? Assuming there was not a fatal accident, how mad would she have been if she had learned that the boy was driving the car? There should be a bright line rule to avoid this Serbonian bog and it should err in favor of coverage.
Full post as published by Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog on July 12, 2010 (boomark / email).
Firestone Tire Problems Raise Questions of Safety
Are Your Car Tires Safe?
Auto Financing
Credit Acceptance Corp. agrees to $52.1 million class action settlement after overcharging consumers for fees and interest on automobile installment contracts.
Bad Faith Insurance
Infinity Property and Casualty Corp. agrees to $13 million personal automobile liability insurance settlement.
Universal Underwriters Life Insurance Co.
Over $2.4 million settlement reached in automobile credit insurance dispute.

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Application of Anti-Stacking Rules for Concurrent Negligence
Change.govs Choice Already Bearing Fruit
Daily Law Review Watch - February 21
Georgia Automobile Insurance - Protect Yourself
An Introduction to Competition Law and Policy in the Modern Automobile Industry
Homogenization and CLS v. Martinez








