Legal Opinion

Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund v. Perry

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided December 8, 1999No. 43, Sept. Term, 1999PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILNER, Judge.

In January, 1994, respondent, Ralph Perry, owned two cars—a 1991 Chevrolet that was insured by the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF) and a 1990 Chevrolet that was uninsured. On January 24, while driving the insured vehicle, he was in an accident and, as a result, incurred medical expenses and wage losses aggregating $1,373. His MAIF insurance policy contained Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that provided for the payment of up to $2,500 for such medical expenses and wage losses. Notwithstanding that coverage, MAIF refused to pay the benefits, contending that (1)…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. GartelmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  2. Van Horn v. Atlantic Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. Allen v. Erie InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Kresge v. Keystone InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Mowery v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Dutta v. State Farm InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  2. Salamon v. Progressive Classic InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  3. Bishop v. State Farm Mutual Auto InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  4. Lewis v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  5. Nasseri v. Geico General InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005

11 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