Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ward v. Nationwide Mutual Automobile Insurance

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 26, 1992No. 125, September Term, 1990Published

1DissentChasanow, Judge

I concur with the majority that “the law of the District of Columbia governing PIP coverage and PIP benefits is the controlling law in this case.” Majority Op. at 247. I dissent from the majority’s construction of the District of Columbia Code and specifically from the holding that “nothing in [§ 35-2105] or any other sections of the District of Columbia Code indicates that an insurer may deny a timely filed PIP claim because the claimant is pursuing a third party tort action.” Majority Op. at 250.

*255PIP under District of Columbia law is a separately purchased optional form of insurance. The PIP…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. William W. Bierce, Ltd. v. HutchinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  2. Dimond v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
  3. Firemen's Benevolent Assn. v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Hart v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  5. Lee v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API