Legal Opinion · Dissent

Maryland Insurance Administration v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 23, 2017No. 41/16Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

McDonald, J.,

which Barbera, C.J., and Greene, J., join.

Much of the Majority opinion consists of background information and detailed descriptions of cases with which I have no quarrel. My disagreement is with the Majority opinion’s conclusion that a properly insured taxicab is an “uninsured” vehicle for purposes of the personal injury protection (“PIP”) statute—Maryland Code, Insurance Article (“IN”), § 19-505.1 That conclusion is not only contrary to the plain language of the statute and its legislative history, but also inconsistent with our most recent decision on PIP…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Maryland Aviation Administration v. NolandCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  2. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. GartelmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  3. Crofton Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental HygieneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2010
  4. Cashcall, Inc. v. Maryland Commissioner of Financial RegulationCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
  5. Nasseri v. Geico General InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005

2 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