A Maryland court of appeals has upheld a 2003 circuit court decision by holding that personal injury protection waivers remain effective until withdrawn in writing.

The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, which filed an amicus curiae on behalf of the insurer, called the appellate court decision a victory for the validity of insurance contracts.

In the original case, Richard Nesbit, a Government Employees Insurance Co. policyholder injured in a 2003 auto mobile accident, attempted to recover PIP benefits. The insurer rejected the claim because the plaintiff had signed a PIP waiver in 1998, according to court documents. The plaintiff claimed that the waiver was invalid because he had since signed a policy with new terms and conditions.

Nesbit's original policy with GEICO covered a 1992 Honda and a 1992 Pontiac. At the time of the accident, Nesbit's policy covered a 1996 Dodge Caravan, which was involved in the accident, and a 2000 Toyota. Nesbit did not dispute that he had signed the PIP waiver five years prior to the accident, but argued that the initial PIP waiver signed in 1998 was no longer effective because he had renewed and changed his policy to include two different vehicles than were originally covered, and that the waiver form itself did not comply with the statutory requirements.

Although Nesbit did not attend the circuit court trial, his attorney was present. GEICO's underwriting and sales manager testified that the updated policy included two pages of information about PIP coverage, and that the plaintiff had signed off on the policy. There was no evidence that the plaintiff had notified GEICO in writing or otherwise that he intended to revoke his PIP waiver, or that he sought to obtain PIP coverage after he signed the additional waiver. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of GEICO and the plaintiff appealed.

In its written opinion, the appellate court cited case history and the state insurance code in supporting both GEICO's coverage decision and the legitimacy of the PIP waiver, which was fully approved by the insurance division.

Nesbit also questioned whether the waiver form used by GEICO complied with the statute and whether the court had 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. The court found that the form used complied with the statute and that the circuit court had not erred in finding that Nesbit had received the whole form

Special Reports /

Insurer Wins PIP Waiver Case

Related Stories

Recommended For You