Opinion ID: 2271024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Insurance Division Approval

Text: In order for the Maryland Changes Endorsement to be utilized by the Insurer in this State, the form would have to have been approved by the Insurance Division. [4] From this, the Insurer concludes that there has been an administrative interpretation that the Endorsement fully complies with IA § 12-104 and that this Court should give weight to that interpretation when construing § 12-104. The role of policy approval in statutory construction was described in Board of Trustees of Md. Teachers & State Employees Supplemental Retirement Plans v. Life & Health Ins. Guar. Corp., 335 Md. 176, 642 A.2d 856 (1994), where we said: Policy approval, of course, is not conclusive of statutory conformity. It is clear that previously approved policies offered by admitted companies for delivery in Maryland may fail to comply with the Insurance Code or other applicable statutes. See, e.g., Van Horn v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 334 Md. 669, 686, 641 A.2d 195, 203 (1994) ('Attempts by insurance companies, purporting to exercise contract rights, to avoid the public policy of compulsory motor vehicle insurance with mandated coverages, have repeatedly been rejected by this Court.'). Nevertheless, on the issue of whether a given policy complies with the Insurance Code, the determination of the Commissioner initially to approve the policy form, coupled with the absence of any exercise by the Commissioner of the § 376(b) power to withdraw approval, is entitled to weight in construing the statute that the policy form allegedly violates. Id. at 191-92, 642 A.2d at 863. In Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gartelman, 288 Md. 151, 416 A.2d 734 (1980), this Court invalidated an exclusion from PIP coverage that the administrator had approved. The Insurance Commissioner's approval of the policy's exclusion is not persuasive because it is an administrative interpretation contrary to the clear and unambiguous meaning of the statute. Id. at 160, 416 A.2d at 738. This brings us full circle back to our conclusion in the Text section of this opinion. The public policy of IA § 12-104 is that an insured's rights under the statute of limitations to file suit on the policy should not be reduced by contractual limitations. There is no ambiguity in the term, shortened, in § 12-104 because that statute requires comparison to the otherwise applicable statute of limitations with its two elements, the date of accrual and the length of the time period. For these reasons, we affirm. [5] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE PETITIONER.