Court Opinion

ID: 9706848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:53:07.127834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:25.424864
License: Public Domain

GARRITY, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as I believe it contrary to the very purpose of the legislative intent to mandate a limited form of no-fault insurance *281coverage to provide personal injury protection rather than funds for an estate through life insurance.
Article 48A, Sec. 539, of the Maryland Code provides PIP coverage for medical, hospital, and disability benefits which include payments for loss of income. The sole and clear purpose of the Act is to supplant an insured’s ability to earn income during his or her period of recuperation from injury. The ability to earn income ceases upon one’s death.
As the majority construes the mandated PIP policy written by the appellant, however, the coverage is in the nature of life insurance up to $10,000 if that amount could have been earned by the decedent within three years. Such interpretation, I believe, is unduly strained and contrary to the very purpose of the Act.