Erie Insurance Exchange v. Heffernan

We have before us two questions of law certified by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act (Maryland Code, §§ 12-601 through 12-613 of the Cts. & Jud. Proc. Article). The questions arise from an action by Edmund and Diane Heffernan (“the Heffernans”), Maryland residents, against Erie Insurance Exchange (“Erie”). *604 The Heffernans seek damages pursuant to the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provisions in two insurance policies issued by Erie. The auto policy provides uninsured/underinsured motorists benefits in the amount of $300,000 per person/$300,000 per accident. A second policy, the personal catastrophe policy, provides an additional $1,000,000 in uninsured/underinsured motorists benefits. The parties were unable to come to an agreement on issues of liability and damages. As a result, the Heffernans filed suit against Erie in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Erie removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The questions certified to us are:

1. In a case involving a claim for benefits pursuant to the uninsured/underinsured provisions of an automobile insurance contract executed in Maryland, where the car accident occurred in Delaware, should Maryland or Delaware law be applied to determine what the claimants would be “entitled to recover” because of the accident?

2. If Delaware law governs the tort issues of this case under lex loci delicti, would Maryland’s public policy exception to that doctrine nonetheless require application of:

a. Maryland’s statutory cap on non-economic damages, Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108, where the insured and the insurer both reside in Maryland, the covered automobiles are garaged in Maryland, and the contract was executed and administered in Maryland?

b. Maryland’s contributory negligence principles?

In answer to the first question, the substantive law of Delaware applies to determine what the claimants would be “entitled to recover” because of the accident. In answer to the second question, Maryland’s public policy exception to the doctrine of lex loci delicti does not require the application of Maryland’s statutory cap on non-economic damages. Similarly, the public policy exception does not require the application of Maryland’s contributory negligence principles.

*605 FACTS

We adopt the facts as recited in the Certification Order issued by the District Court in this case:

On April 18, 2003 at about 6:30 a.m., Mallory Heffernan, a minor, was fatally injured in an automobile accident that occurred on Route 301 in the State of Delaware. Ms. Heffernan (hereinafter “Decedent”) was transported from the scene and taken to a Delaware hospital, where she subsequently died. The Decedent and another minor, Curtis Jones, had been passengers in a vehicle driven by John McMahon, Jr., also a minor, and owned by his mother, Angela McMahon. The accident occurred when John McMahon, Jr. apparently fell asleep at the wheel and collided with a tractor-trailer. At the time of the accident, the Decedent resided with her parents, Edmund and Diane Heffernan, in Queenstown, Maryland. The driver, John McMahon, Jr., and the other passenger, Curtis Jones, were step-brothers who resided with Mr. McMahon’s father and Mr. Jones’s mother in Ingleside, Maryland.

The group of teenagers, all Maryland residents, had driven from Maryland to Pennsylvania after school on April 17, 2003 in order to attend a concert in Allentown, Pennsylvania that night. After the concert, they began to make their way back to Maryland. The group first drove a friend home to Kutztown, Pennsylvania. After doing so, they became lost and called the Heffernans to help them get directions back to the highway. The group then drove another friend home to Swedesboro, New Jersey. The occupants of the McMahon vehicle were on their way back to Maryland, driving through Delaware, when the accident occurred at approximately 6:30 a.m. As planned prior to the trip, John McMahon, Jr. was the only individual in the group who drove the car throughout the entire trip to or from the concert.

At trial, [Erie] believes that it will introduce evidence that the Decedent called her parents at home in Maryland at least twice between midnight and 4:40 a.m., during their *606 drive back to Maryland. Further, [Erie’s] evidence would show that, during these calls, the Decedent informed her parents that they were too tired to continue and requested her parents’ permission to stop traveling for the night and sleep at the home of friends in either Kutztown, Pennsylvania or, later, in Swedesboro, New Jersey. [Erie] believes that it will present evidence showing that her parents refused these requests and demanded that the group continue the drive home.

At trial, [the Heffernans] believe that they will introduce evidence that there were telephone contacts between them and Mallory. Further, [the Heffernans] believe that they would present evidence that at no point during the entire evening were any requests made to them for permission to stop nor at any point were [the Heffernans] advised that the driver or any of the other persons in the vehicle being driven by John McMahon were suffering from fatigue.

At the time of the accident, the Decedent’s parents, Edmund and Diane Heffernan, carried a Pioneer Family Auto Policy (# Q01 080493 M) and a Personal Catastrophe Policy (# Q31 2350156 M) with [Erie]. These are Maryland policies, designed to comply with Maryland mandatory insurance requirements, which were issued, sold and delivered in Maryland to Maryland residents, Edmund and Diane Heffernan. Their auto policy included underinsured motorists coverage in the amount of $300,000 per person/ $300,000 per accident; the catastrophe policy provided $1,000,000 in underinsured motorists coverage. It is agreed that the vehicle driven by Mr. McMahon was an underinsured motor vehicle with respect to the Erie policy.

The Heffernans and Erie were unable to come to an agreement on issues of liability and the amount of benefits to be paid, and the Heffernans filed suit against Erie in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, seeking damages pursuant to the underinsured motorists coverage. [Erie] then removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The underinsured motorists coverage in the Erie policies provided, in part that *607 Erie would pay damages (up to the applicable limits) “that the law entitles you” to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle. [The Heffernans] have asserted that Maryland’s non-economic damages cap, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 11-108, does not limit the damages available to them. [Erie] contends that § 11-108 applies to limit the damages available. In addition, [the Heffernans] assert that Delaware’s tort law including the comparative negligence doctrine should be applied to determine whether, and to what extent, they are entitled to recover from the uninsured motorist. [Erie] contends that Maryland law, including the doctrines of contributory negligence and assumption of risk, should be applied.

DISCUSSION

What is ultimately at issue in this case is whether, in determining what the law, and therefore the policies, entitle the insureds to recover, Maryland would apply its own law or Delaware law. The automobile liability insurance policies issued to the Heffernans by Erie in this case were issued in Maryland. As discussed, supra, at the time of the collision, the vehicle operated by Mr. McMahon was underinsured with respect to the uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions of the Erie policy because the damages the Heffernans seek exceed the tortfeasor’s liability insurance policy limits. In West American Ins. Co. v. Popa, 352 Md. 455, 462-63, 723 A.2d 1,4-5 (1998), we said that

[u]nder the Maryland uninsured/underinsured motorist statutory provisions, when an insured under an automobile insurance policy has incurred damages as a result of the allegedly tortious driving by an uninsured or underinsured motorist, the insured has the option of initially bringing a contract action against his or her insurer to recover under the policy’s uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions or of initially bringing a tort action against the tortfeasor. When the insured chooses the second option, and notifies his or her insurer of the tort action, the issues of the unin *608 sured/underinsured defendant’s liability and the amount of damages are resolved in the tort action.

(Citations omitted.) Here, the Heffernans chose to bring a contract action 1 against their insurer, Erie, and settled the tort claim against the underinsured tortfeasor, for the policy limits, which were $35,000.00. Erie waived any right to subrogation and allowed the Heffernans to accept the amount offered.

Erie contends that to determine an insurer’s liability (what the Heffernans are “entitled to recover”) amounts to an interpretation of the contract and that it was contemplated by both parties that the policies would be interpreted by referencing Maryland law only, despite the fact that the automobile collision occurred in Delaware. The issue, Erie asserts, is properly decided under Maryland contract law. In Erie’s view, the interpretation of “entitled to recover” requires reference to “general principles of tort law” only and is not a mixed question of contract and tort law. Erie argues that because only the law of Maryland is implicated, it is not a choice of law issue. According to Erie, if the interpretation of “entitled to recover” presents a choice of law question, Maryland should discontinue its adherence to lex loci delicti and adopt a “most significant relationship” test. Additionally, Erie argues that the renvoi 2 doctrine should apply. Erie posits that, pursuant to the doctrine of renvoi, this Court would apply Maryland tort law to the extent that the contract interpretation requires reference to tort law. Lastly, Erie asserts that Maryland’s public policy exception to lex loci delicti requires application *609 of Maryland’s statutory cap and the principles of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.

Conversely, the Heffernans contend that “contract and tort law converge in uninsured motorist coverage” and, as a result, contract principles should apply to certain portions of an action for uninsured motorist benefits and tort principles to other aspects. In the Heffernans’ view, our interpretation of the phrase, “that the law entitles you,” as it appears in the insurance policies (or “entitled to recover” as used in Md.Code (1997, 2006 Rep 1. Vol.), § 19-509(c) of the Insurance Article) is a question of mixed law, contract and tort. The Heffernans take the position that because tort law varies from state to state, specifically the tort law of Delaware, the situs of the collision, is different from that of Maryland, the place where the contract was performed; hence, a conflict of laws exists. The Heffernans urge that this Court would apply the principle of lex loci delicti to resolve the conflict of laws, and, in doing so, apply the substantive tort law of Delaware to determine what they are “entitled to recover.” Unlike Erie, the Heffernans urge that the doctrine of renvoi is inapplicable to the present case. Finally, the Heffernans argue that Maryland’s non-eeonomie damages cap and the rule of contributory negligence should not apply to preclude their recovery.

A.

Statutory Construction

This case calls for the construction of two identical phrases within two separate insurance policies issued by Erie to the Heffernans. Specifically, the policies provide that Erie will pay damages “that the law entitles you” to recover from an uninsured/underinsured motorist. We assume arguendo, that the coverage provided for under the policies was designed to comply with Maryland’s uninsured motorist statute, § 19-509 of the Insurance Article. 3 We note that “[t]he Erie *610 policies obligate Erie to pay the Heffernans the damages ‘the law entitles [the Heffernans] to recover’ from the driver and/or owner of the uninsured motor vehicle.” Thus, the language contained in the automobile liability insurance policies issued to the Heffernans by Erie mirrors the language of § 19-509(c). “To the extent, if any, that the wording of the Insurance Code may indicate broader coverage than the wording of the insurance policy ... the statutory language would prevail over the insurance policy language.” Popa, 352 Md. at 465, n. 2, 723 A.2d at 6 n. 2. Therefore, in order to determine whether Maryland or Delaware law should be applied to determine what the Heffernans would be “entitled to recover” under the uninsured motorist provisions of their policy, we must interpret § 19-509 of the Insurance Article. Accordingly; “[w]e turn first to the principles of statutory construction. Our goal when engaging in statutory interpretation is ‘to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.’ ” Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172, 182, 909 A.2d 694, 699, (citing Johnson v. Mayor of Balt. City, 387 Md. 1, 11, 874 A.2d 439, 445 (2005); O’Connor v. Balt. County, 382 Md. 102, 113, 854 A.2d 1191, 1198 (2004)). In Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 388 Md. 82, 88-89, 878 A.2d 615, 618-19, we noted that

[t]o begin with, we must consider the plain language of the statute. As noted in Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v. Dir. of Fin. for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 343 Md. 567, 683 A.2d 512 (1996), ‘we begin our inquiry with the *611 words of the statute and, ordinarily, when the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, according to their commonly understood meaning, we end our inquiry there also.’ Chesapeake & Potomac Tel., 343 Md. at 578, 683 A.2d at 517; see also Jones v. State, 336 Md. 255, 261, 647 A.2d 1204, 1206-07 (‘If the words of the statute, construed according to their common and everyday meaning, are clear and unambiguous and express a plain meaning, we will give effect to the statute as it is written.’) Moreover, ‘[w]here the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, a court may neither add nor delete language so as to ‘reflect an intent not evidenced in that language.’ ’ Chesapeake & Potomac Tel., 343 Md. at 579, 683 A.2d at 517 (quoting Condon v. State, 332 Md. 481, 491, 632 A.2d 753, 755 (1993)).

B.

The Uninsured Mlotorist Statute

As we noted in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. DeHaan, 393 Md. 163, 171-72, 900 A.2d 208, 213 (2006), the Maryland General Assembly

first enacted the uninsured motorist statute as Chapter 73 of the Acts of 1972. This section was part of a large bill which also created the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF), the bill provided:

‘(c) In addition to any other coverage required by this subtitled, every policy or motor vehicle liability insurance, sold, or delivered in this State after January 1, 1973 may contain coverage, in at least the amounts required under Section 7-101 of Article 66\ of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1970 Replacement Volume and 1972 Supplement), for damages which the insured is entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injuries sustained in an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such uninsured motor vehicle.’

*612 The statute was later amended and codified as Maryland Code (1957, 1972 RepLVol., 1978 Cum.Supp.), Art. 48A, § 541(c).

The enactment of this section complied with one of the recommendations made in a Report of the Special Committee on No-Fault Insurance dated January 31, 1972. The committee’s recommendation stated: ‘To complement the first party coverage and to protect more fully a Maryland driver, the second bill requires the driver to carry uninsured motorist coverage in the event he suffers damage caused by an out-of-state driver not protected by liability insurance.’

(Citations omitted.) The purpose of the uninsured motorist statute is to provide minimum protection for individuals injured by uninsured motorists and should be liberally construed to ensure that innocent victims of motor vehicle collisions are compensated for their injuries. See DeHaan, 393 Md. 163, 900 A.2d 208; Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 388 Md. 82, 878 A.2d 615 (2005); Yarmuth v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 286 Md. 256, 407 A.2d 315 (1979). The uninsured motorist statute creates a floor to liability and not a ceiling. See Wilson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 395 Md. 524, 910 A.2d 1122 (2006). Consistent with the public policy of affording minimal protection for innocent victims, an insured can purchase “a higher amount of uninsured motorist insurance which will become available when the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage, as well as his damages, exceed the liability coverage of the tortfeasor.” Waters v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 328 Md. 700, 712, 616 A.2d 884, 889 (1992).

This Court has considered the construction of the uninsured motorist statute on numerous occasions dating back to its enactment. See, e.g. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Md. Auto. Ins. Fund, 277 Md. 602, 605, 356 A.2d 560, 562, (1976) (holding that an insurer’s “limitation of coverage to instances of physical impact between the insured and the phantom vehicle plainly violated the legislative mandate of [the uninsured motorist statute] and is void”); Yarmuth, 286 Md. at 264, 407 A.2d at 319 (interpreting the uninsured motorist statute as “having the purpose of providing minimum protee *613 tion to individuals injured by uninsured motorist” up to a specified amount and that a clause in an insurance policy reducing the insurance coverage to that minimum is consistent with legislated public policy); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Webb, 291 Md. 721, 436 A.2d 465 (1981) (holding that “consent to sue” clauses contained within an uninsured motorist endorsement are unenforceable and contrary to the public policy expressed in the uninsured motorist statute); Lee v. Wheeler, 310 Md. 233, 528 A.2d 912 (1987) (holding that an insurance provision requiring physical contact between an insured vehicle and a phantom vehicle when the accident occurred out of state was contrary to the public policy expressed in the uninsured motorist statute).

The Uninsured Motorist (UM) Statute and the Instant Case

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)(l) 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 *614 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 under-insured 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 recovery” 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 *615 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.

C.

Choice-of-Law

Erie contends that the District Court should not refer to Maryland’s tort choice of law principles to determine whether Maryland or Delaware tort law applies because the District Court can resolve this case by application of Maryland contract law. Further, Erie asserts that this case has been filed pursuant to a Maryland contract and that “fault” should be determined in accordance with Maryland law, as that is the law that the parties contemplated would apply; but, that such a determination does not indicate that Delaware tort law should be applied. Conversely, the Heffernans argue that “contract and tort law converge whenever an uninsured motorist claim is presented,” and that “the forum court must apply contract principles to certain portions of the uninsured motorist claim and tort principles to other aspects.” The result, the Heffernans contend, is that the forum court has to make two choice of law analyses. As discussed infra, we agree with the Heffernans.

Generally, in a conflict-of-laws situation, a court must determine at the outset the nature of the problem presented to it for solution, specifically, if it relates to torts, contracts, property, or some other field, or to a matter of substance or procedure. See Handy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 327 F.Supp. 596 (D.Del.1971). Accordingly, we first address the nature of an action by an insured against his own insurer for uninsured motorist benefits. The action by the insured against the insurer is a contract action. Recovery is based upon the element of tortious conduct, in this case, the negligence of a third party.

*616 In Reese, supra, we were presented with circumstances factually similar to those of the instant case. William Reese, the plaintiff in that action, was injured in an accident that occurred in Danville, Virginia. Reese alleged that his injuries occurred as a result of the negligence of the other driver and that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, his insurer at the time of the collision, breached its contract by denying him coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of that policy. In Reese, the issue before this Court was whether “as a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability ... [an injured] plaintiff must first bring suit and recover a judgment against the uninsured motorist.” Reese, 285 Md. at 553, 403 A.2d at 1232. Preliminarily, we determined that the language of the uninsured motorist statute in force at that time, Md.Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol., 1978 Cum.Supp.), Art. 48A § 541(c), and the language of the automobile insurance policy were “substantially identical,” obligating State Farm “ ‘to pay all sums which the insured ... shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury or injury to the covered vehicle.” Reese, 285 Md. at 552, 403 A.2d at 1231. Rejecting State Farm’s contention that there must first be a determination of the alleged tortfeasor’s liability, we stated that uninsured motorist coverage is “ ‘first party coverage’ like collision, comprehensive, medical payments or personal injury protection and not ‘third party coverage’ such as personal injury or property damage liability insurance.” Reese, 285 Md. at 552, 403 A.2d at 1231-32. We held that “an insured need not, as a condition for recovery against his insurer under the uninsured motorist endorsement, sue and obtain a judgment against the uninsured tortfeasor.” Reese, 285 Md. at 554, 403 A.2d at 1233. In so holding, we determined that “[a] suit based upon the insured’s allegation that he is entitled to payment under one of the first party coverage clauses in the contract he entered into with his insurance carrier, and that the carrier has refused payment thereby breaching its promise, is dearly a contract action.” Reese, 285 Md. at 552-53, 403 A.2d at 1232 (emphasis added).

*617 Furthermore, in Reese, we cited with approval the decision of the Supreme Court of Kansas in Winner v. Ratzlaff, 211 Kan. 59, 505 P.2d 606 (1973). Winner pointed out that the words “legally entitled to recover as damages” meant that “the insured must be able to establish fault on the part of the uninsured motorist which gives rise to the damages and to prove the extent of those damages.” Reese, 285 Md. at 555, 403 A.2d at 1233 (citation omitted). Further, we noted that “[i]n resisting the claim the insurer would have available to it, in addition to policy defenses compatible with the statute, [the insurer could raise] the substantive defenses that would have been available to the uninsured motorist such as contributory negligence, etc. 5 ” Reese, 285 Md. at 556, 403 A.2d at 1233; see also, Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Webb, 291 Md. 721, 736, 436 A.2d 465, 474 (1981) (noting, in accordance with Reese, supra, that the uninsured motorist statute requires the claimant to establish that he or she is “entitled to recover.” This Court held in Reese and Webb that the injured party can establish that he or she is “entitled to recover” (and thereby satisfy the statutory requirement) by obtaining a “valid final tort judgment,” entered against the uninsured motorist. After obtaining a final tort judgment, the injured party must then prove the contract in order to recover uninsured motorist benefits from the insurer.).

Notably absent, however, from our decisions in Reese and