Opinion ID: 4023275
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the plaintiff one of the class for whose

Text: special benefit the statute was enacted? (2) Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? (3) Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? Id. at 780; see also Erie Ins. Co. v. Chops, 585 A.2d 232, 23637 (Md. 1991) (holding that a statute requiring auto insurers to notify the Motor Vehicle Administration of the cancellation of an insured’s policy did not create a private right of action in favor of a plaintiff injured by an uninsured driver whose lapse in coverage the insurer failed to report). If “neither the statute nor the legislative history reveals a legislative intent to create a private right of action for the benefit of the plaintiff,” a court need proceed no further. Genuine Title, 136 A.3d at 779 (quoting Baker, 50 A.3d at 1123). In construing the UCC, Maryland courts use “the same principles of statutory construction that . . . would apply in determining the meaning of any other legislative enactment,” though some consideration is given to maintaining uniformity among jurisdictions. Jefferson v. Jones, 408 A.2d 1036, 1039 (Md. 1979). These interpretive principles “require 8 ascertainment of the legislative intent, and if . . . construction becomes necessary because the terminology chosen is not clear, then [the court] must consider not only the significance of the literal language used, but the effect of [a] proposed reading in light of the legislative purpose sought to be accomplished.” Id. Moreover, the UCC’s Official Comments “are an excellent place to begin a search for the legislature’s intent when it adopted the Code,” though “these comments are not controlling authority and may not be used to vary the plain language of the statute.” Id.