Opinion ID: 1924955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Uninsured Motorist (UM) Statute and the Instant Case

Text: We next turn our attention to the applicable provisions of the UM statute to determine whether the Legislature, when it enacted the UM statute, intended for the phrase entitled to recover to implicate tort law. In determining the intent of the Legislature, we begin our analysis with the plain language of the statute. State Dept. of Assessments & Taxation v. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 348 Md. 2, 12, 702 A.2d 690, 695 (1997). The crux of this appeal is our interpretation of subsection 19-509(c)(1) which provides that the insured is entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured motor vehicle. (Emphasis added.) In our view, the phrase entitled to recover is a tort principle. Our decision in West American v. Popa, 352 Md. 455, 723 A.2d 1 (1998), supports this view. Notwithstanding, Erie contends that in Popa, we adopted a broad definition of `entitled to recover' and that from our holding in Popa it logically flows that fault and damages under this Maryland contract should be established in accordance with Maryland law. In Popa, the insurer, West American, issued an automobile liability insurance policy to the Popas, that stated in relevant part that West American `will pay damages which a covered person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle. Popa, 352 Md. at 464, 723 A.2d at 5. The Popas filed suit against West American to collect uninsured motorist benefits for the death of their son, which resulted from a traffic collision with a Maryland State Police car, driven by a state trooper. West American argued, inter alia, that it was not required to pay any benefits to the Popas because the Popas were not legally entitled to recover any amounts beyond the $50,000 already paid by the State resting upon the premise that the policy language `legally entitled to recover' [meant] that if there is any legal bar to actual recovery from the uninsured or underinsured motorist, then the insured is not `legally entitled to recover' his actual damages from the uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor. Popa, 352 Md. at 465, 723 A.2d at 5-6. The Court rejected West American's definition of legally entitled to recover, instead reaffirming our holding in Reese v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 285 Md. 548, 403 A.2d 1229 (1979), citing that definition of legally entitled to recover[,] i.e., proof that the uninsured motorist was at fault and the amount of damages as determinative and noting that in Reese we adopted a broader definition of the policy language. [4] Popa, 352 Md. at 467, 723 A.2d at 7. We do not agree with Erie, however, that our holding in Popa, no matter the breadth of the definition of legally entitled to recover, indicates that Maryland substantive tort law applies in this case. Our holdings in Reese and Popa certainly provide definitions of the terms entitled to recover and legally entitled to recover. Neither of those cases, nor the definitions contained therein, indicate that only Maryland contract law will apply to all aspects of a contract action involving an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim no matter what issue is in dispute. Reese and Popa, however, stand for the proposition that entitled to recover is, itself, a tort concept. Because entitled to recover, as it is used in the insurance policies, is a tort concept, it is subject to application of the appropriate tort law as determined by Maryland's choice of law principles.