Nesbit also questions whether the waiver form used by GEICO complied with the statute and whether the Court erred by finding that he had received a three-page waiver form from GEICO even though GEICO only produced the signed signature page of the form at trial. We hold that such a contract is permissible under Maryland law.
The issue before this Court is whether Section 19-506 of the Insurance Article of the Maryland Code voids a PIP waiver that (by its own terms) remains effective until withdrawn by the insured in writing, if the insured s policy has been renewed and changed since the signing of the PIP wa iver. Nesbit petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, which we granted on M arch 11, 2004. A fter taking tes timony and hearing arguments, the Court entered judgment in favor of GEICO. Nesbit did n ot appear f or the trial, but his attorney attended. Nesbit noted a de novo appeal in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on August 7, 2003.
The parties tried the case on July 3, 2003, and the Court entered judgment on behalf of GEICO. Nesbit sued GEIC O in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore County. GEICO rejected the PIP claim because Nesbit had no PIP coverage, having signed a PIP waiver on June 15, 1998. Nesbit attem pted to reco ver person al injury protection ( PIP ) be nefits from his insurer, Government Employees Insurance Company ( GEICO ). _ Filed: JOn February 7, 2003, Richard Nesbit ( Nesbit ) w as injured in a n automo bile accident. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY _ Bell, C.J. 131 September Term, 2003 _ RICHA RD NE SBIT v. 03-C-03-008624 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. In the Circu it Court for B altimore C ounty Case No.
0 kommentar(er)
