Opinion ID: 2060375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uninsured Motorist as a Matter of Law

Text: Allstate contends that Sowell was not an uninsured motorist as a matter of law because the facts supporting this interpretation were not uncontroverted. We disagree. A party may move for judgment on any or all of the issues in any action at the close of the evidence offered by an opposing party, and in a jury trial at the close of all the evidence. Md. Rule 2-519(a). Upon such a motion, the court must consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and interpret every reasonable inference in its favor. DeBleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498, 510, 438 A.2d 1348, 1355 (1982); Impala Platinum v. Impala Sales, 283 Md. 296, 328, 389 A.2d 887, 905-06 (1978). The court should not grant a judgment in favor of the moving party on any issue for which that party bears the burden of proof except when (1) the facts are uncontroverted or (2) the parties have agreed to the facts. University Nat'l Bank v. Wolfe, 279 Md. 512, 525, 369 A.2d 570, 577 (1977); Alexander v. Tingle, 181 Md. 464, 470, 30 A.2d 737, 740 (1943). In order for evidentiary facts and inferences to be `uncontroverted or undisputed,' there must be either actual or constructive acquiescence in their truth on the part of all affected parties. University Nat'l Bank, 279 Md. at 525, 369 A.2d at 577-78 (quoting Peroti v. Williams, 258 Md. 663, 669, 267 A.2d 114, 118 (1970)). While a jury must accept uncontroverted evidence as a matter of law, the jury may disbelieve uncontradicted evidence. Id. at 525, 369 A.2d at 577. Miller produced the following evidence at trial to prove that the defendant driver was an uninsured motorist. Lenora Eileen Sowell (Mrs. Sowell) testified that she owned the car which her husband was driving at the time of the collision. The car was not insured. Moreover, to the best of her knowledge, her husband had no other type of insurance coverage which would provide for damages arising from the accident. Charles Pacholkiw, a representative of Nationwide Insurance Company, testified that he had sold automobile insurance to Mrs. Sowell for the car in question; however he also produced a Notice of Cancellation of insurance, which was admitted into evidence. That notice had been mailed to Mrs. Sowell and stated that her policy had been terminated on January 5, 1983 for nonpayment of the premium. The accident occurred on January 29, 1983. Deborah Ritter (Ritter), a casualty claims adjuster for Allstate, investigated Miller's accident and testified that she received a letter from Nationwide Insurance. The letter, which was admitted into evidence, stated that Sowell was uninsured at the time of the accident. Ritter also testified that she knew of no other efforts made by Allstate to ascertain whether Sowell or the vehicle he was driving had insurance at the time of the accident. Stephen Leslie Kind, the driver of the vehicle in which Miller rode, stated that he had obtained the name of Sowell's insurance agent as well as their policy number from the Department of Motor Vehicles; the agent informed him that Sowell's policy had lapsed. [3] Finally, records from the Maryland Department of Transportation were introduced into evidence. These records indicated that the Sowells were the owners of the car that had collided with Miller and Kind's vehicle and that the vehicle's insurance was cancelled on January 5, 1983. Although Allstate denied liability, the company offered no evidence to prove that Sowell had insurance at the time of the accident. [4] Nor did Allstate offer evidence to impeach Miller's witnesses or to contradict Miller's evidence. During a bench conference at trial, the judge asked counsel for Allstate, What evidence is there that you can point to that there was any insurance, other than a vague hope that somebody might think that he was insured? Counsel for Allstate responded, None, your Honor, except for the fact that he very well could have had a personal policy. Where a plaintiff provides extensive evidence that a motorist is uninsured and the plaintiff's carrier makes no attempt to rebut that evidence or to prove that the motorist was insured, the court should, upon proper motion, rule that the motorist was uninsured as a matter of law. In essence, the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence becomes uncontroverted on the basis of the plaintiff's thorough documentation and the defendant's complete inaction. The mere suggestion by the carrier that the motorist might have had a personal policy is not sufficient to prevent the court from reaching this conclusion. In reviewing the evidence presented in a light most favorable to Allstate, we conclude that the facts concerning Sowell's status as an uninsured motorist are uncontroverted. We agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the trial court properly instructed the jury that Sowell was an uninsured motorist as a matter of law.