A Contractual Provision That Violates Public Policy Is Invalid, But Only To The Extent Of The Conflict Between The Stated Public Policy And The Contractual Provision

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/void-exclusion-does-entire-policy-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3900 posts.

Following an automobile accident in March 2016, appellant Dinora Dominquez sought insurance coverage from her insurer, Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”). When GEICO denied Ms. Dominquez’s claim for coverage, she sued GEICO alleging breach of contract. GEICO moved for summary judgment, and the circuit court granted GEICO’s motion. In Dinora Dominquez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, No. 811-2020, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (September 13, 2021) the Court of Special Appeals was asked to declare an exclusion in GEICO’s policy to violate public policy and reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

ZALMA OPINION

Insureds often try to stack UM/UIM coverages that were not intended to be stacked – a means to cover serious injuries where the primary insurance is inadequate. Insurers, in accordance with state law, work to avoid the stacking because they did not collect appropriate premium for two or more policies paying claims for a single accident in a single insured automobile.