Opinion ID: 2423043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Michael and Steven Williams v. Work, et al.

Text: On July 21, 2005, the Circuit Court opened Case No. 03-C-05-007925 when Mrs. Williams' counsel, now representing the Respondents, [5] filed a Complaint on their behalf. On August 17, 2005, Mrs. Williams' counsel filed an AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL against the Petitioners and two other defendants. [6] That Amended Complaint includes the following assertions and requests: Plaintiffs, Steven Louis Williams, A Minor, by his mother and next friend, Donna [S], and Michael Christopher Williams, by their attorneys, [], sues Defendants, William Charles Work, Charles Oliver Beatty, III, American Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Inc., State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Company and Ace American Insurance Company, in a wrongful death action pursuant to Sections 3-901, et seq., of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and Maryland Rules Q40, et seq., and respectfully states as follows:    2. The Plaintiffs are the children of the marriage of Michael Dwayne Williams, the Plaintiffs' father who died on September 12, 2002, and their mother, Donna [S].    23. At the time of this accident, the Deceased was the father of the Plaintiffs, Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams, but were at that time both minor children and living with their mother and legal custodian, Donna [S]. The Plaintiff[s] nevertheless are persons eligible for the benefits of the Defendant, American Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Inc.'s motor vehicle insurance policy with either or all of the Defendants, State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Company and Ace American Insurance Company. 24. The Plaintiffs, Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams, have duly made a claim against the applicable provisions of the policy of insurance provided by the Defendants, State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Company and Ace American Insurance Company, for the losses sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the death of the Deceased, their father, that were proximately caused by the negligence of the uninsured/underinsured driver, the Defendant, William Charles Work. The Plaintiffs' claims of coverage were wrongfully denied [] by the Defendants, State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance company and Ace American Insurance Company. Said denials constitute a breach of the obligations due the Plaintiffs under the policies of insurance. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams, Surviving Children of Michael Dwayne Williams, Deceased, demand judgment against the Defendants, William Charles Work, Charles Oliver Beatty, 3rd, American Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Inc., State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Company and Ace American Insurance Company, in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00), in compensatory damages, to be proportioned pursuant to Section 3-904(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, plus interest and the costs of this action. Thereafter, in both Case No. 03-C-05-007925 and Case No. 03-C-03-005338, Mrs. Williams' counsel filed a MOTION TO REOPEN AND CONSOLIDATE that included the following assertions and request: 2. In both of the above captioned cases, the claimants are primary beneficiaries as that term is defined in Section 3-904(a) of the Courts Article. The Plaintiffs in Steven Williams, et al. v. William Work, et al, 03-C-05-007925, are Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams children of the decedent as a result of the decedent's first marriage to Donna [S]. That marriage ended in divorce prior to the decedent's death. See the attached Judgment of Absolute Divorce dated March 9, 1998. There is no question that this action was filed within the limitations period. The initial Plaintiffs in Lori Williams, et al. v. William Work, et al, 03-C-03-005338, were Lori Williams, the wife of the decedent at the time of his death and Jeremy Williams and Shane Williams, children of the decedent as a result of the decedent's marriage to Lori Williams. Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams were not initially named as Plaintiffs in that action.    4. In regard to the case of Lori Williams, et al. v. William Work, et al, 03-C-03-005338, the parties in that case agreed as part of their settlement discussions that the Plaintiffs would and did file an amended complaint adding as use Plaintiffs, Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams, and filed the attached JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT in May of 2005. The amended complaint adding the use Plaintiffs was mailed by certified mailed to the use Plaintiffs, i.e. Donna [S] for the minor child, Steven Louis Williams, and to Michael Christopher Williams, pursuant to Rule 15-1001(c). A private process server also served the use Plaintiffs. See the attached Affidavits of Private Process Service. The use Plaintiffs did not either file an Answer or other type of response to the amended complaint or attempt to contact counsel for any party. 5. The JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR SETTLEMENT AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, however, specifically did not provide anything for the claims of Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams. In addition, the Joint Motion was filed by the parties and granted by [the Circuit Court] on May 17, 2005. Apparently, the JOINT MOTION was not served on the use Plaintiffs. The use Plaintiffs, however, did not either file an Answer or other type of response to the amended complaint or attempt to contact counsel for any party. 6. Rule 15-1001 itself does not specifically provide a time limit by which the use Plaintiffs, Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams, were to respond to the amended complaint. 7. Pursuant to Walker v. Essex, 318 Md. 516[, 569 A.2d 645] (1990), a settlement by some of the primary beneficiaries to a wrongful death suit requires either the consent of all primary beneficiaries or court approval. Obviously, neither Steven Louise Williams, a minor, or Michael Christopher Williams, consented to the settlement in the case of Lori Williams, et al. v. William Work, et al, 03-C-03-005338. This court approved the settlement knowing explicitly that the claims of Steven Louis Williams, a minor, and Michael Christopher Williams were not addressed. The case of Steven Williams, et al v. William Work, et al, 03-C-05-007925, was filed to specifically address those unprovided for and legitimate claims of Steven Louis Williams, a minor, and Michael Christopher Williams. 8. Plaintiffs, Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams, are mindful that Maryland's Wrongful Death Statute, specifically Section 3-901 of the Courts Article, and Rule 15-1001(b) specifically require a single action to address that claims of all beneficiaries to a potential claim. This Motion to Reopen and to Consolidate is being filed to address that issue, but not to disturb the previous funds allocated to settle the claims of Plaintiffs, Lori Williams, Jeremy Williams and Shane Williams. 9. Plaintiffs Steven Louis Williams, a minor, and Michael Christopher Williams do not believe that the interests of justice and due process were/are served if it is determined that their claims were terminated by the Order dated May 17, 2005. The Plaintiffs would have consented to the settlement of the claims made by Plaintiffs, Lori Williams, Jeremy Williams and Shane Williams, exactly on the terms identified provided that their own claims would have remained open to adjudication. 10. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs, Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams, submit that not all potential claims were pursued against all of the potential Defendants in the case of Lori Williams, et al v. William Work, et. al., 03-C-03-005338, i.e., State Auto Insurance Company, a second underinsured motorist carrier. The Plaintiffs further submit that not only is their room for the settlement of their claims in regard to the policy limits of Defendant Ace American Insurance Company but that Defendant State Auto Insurance company has exposure as well. 11. Consequently, the above-captioned cases share identical issues of fact and law and it would be in the interests of justice and due process to reopen the case of Lori Williams, et al v. William Work, et al, 03-C-03-005338, and to consolidate into it the case of Steven Williams, et al. v. William Work, et al, 03-C-05-007925, for purposes of compliance with Rule 15-1001(b), Section 3-901 of the Courts Article and Walker v. Essex , 318 Md. [516] 515[, 569 A.2d 645] (1990). WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Steven Louis Williams and Michael Christopher Williams, request that the cases be consolidated. (Emphasis added). In Case No. 03-C-05-007925, Ace filed a THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Mrs. Williams, which required that she be represented by counsel other than the lawyer who (1) represented her and her children in Williams I, and (2) now represented the Respondents in Williams II. In a series of rulings, the Circuit Court ultimately (1) denied the Motion to Reopen Case No. 03-C-03-005338, (2) granted summary judgment against the Respondents and in favor of every defendant in Case No. 03-C-05-007925, and (3) denied the requests for Attorney's Fees and Expenses filed by Ace and American Sprinkler. The Respondents noted appeals from (1) the denial of their Motion to Reopen, and (2) the summary judgments entered against them. Ace and American Sprinkler noted appeals from the denial of their requests for Attorney's Fees and Expenses.