Sample Complaint for Uninsured Motorist Case in Maryland Circuit Court

ABOUT THIS FORM

This is a sample complaint for an action filed in Maryland Circuit Court in an auto accident case in which the at-fault driver had no insurance. The plaintiff is attempting to recover damages from his own insurance company (GEICO) under the uninsured motorist section of the policy. The complaint names both the at-fault driver and GEICO as defendants. The cause of action against GEICO is for “breach of contract” — based on GEICO’s alleged failure to honor its contractual obligation under the uninsured motorist section of the policy.


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR BALTIMORE CITY

JANE SMITH, Plaintiff

v.

JOHN TORFEASOR

and

GEICO, Defendants

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, JANE SMITH (“Plaintiff”) by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr. and Laura G. Zois of Miller & Zois, LLC, files this Complaint against Defendants JOHN TORTFEASOR (“Defendant Tortfeasor”) and GEICO (“Defendant GEICO”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

        1.   Plaintiff is a Maryland resident with her primary residence in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

        2.  Defendant Tortfeasor is currently a resident of California with his primary residence in Los Angeles. However, at the time that the accident at issue in this case occurred, Defendant Tortfeasor was Maryland resident. 

        3.  Defendant GEICO is a Maryland corporation with its headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland and is authorized to write auto liability insurance policies throughout the state. At the time of the auto accident at issue in this case, Plaintiff was operating a 2019 Honda Civic that was insured by GEICO.

FACTS

        4. This case involves an auto accident that occurred on April 11, 2019.   Plaintiff was driving northbound at a normal rate of speed in the left lane on I-95, 2 miles south of the Fort McHenry Tunnel.  Defendant Tortfeasor was also driving northbound on I-95 and was directly behind the Plaintiff. 

        5.  Defendant Tortfeasor was following very closely behind Plaintiff’s vehicle. When Plaintiff slowed down in response to traffic in front of her, Defendant Tortfeasor failed to stop or slow down and rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle. 

        6.  As a result of being violently struck from behind by Defendant Tortfeasor’s large SUV, Plaintiff’s smaller vehicle crushed from behind. The front end of Plaintiff’s vehicle also impacted a concrete barrier wall. 

        7.  The force of the double impact collision caused Plaintiff’s body to forcefully jerk forward and suffer extensive physical trauma. Emergency personnel had to cut Plaintiff out of her vehicle, at which point she was rushed to Shock Trauma at the University of Maryland Hospital. 

COUNT I – Negligence (Tortfeasor)

The allegations set forth in the foregoing numbered paragraphs are incorporated herein.

        8.  Defendant Tortfeasor had a duty of care to operate his vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner and in accordance with applicable Maryland traffic law. 

        9.  Defendant Tortfeasor breached this duty by operating his vehicle in a careless and negligent manner. Defendant Tortfeasor failed to maintain a safe distance behind Plaintiff’s vehicle and then failed to slow down or stop his vehicle and ultimately striking Plaintiff from behind. 

        10.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Tortfeasor’s negligent operation of his vehicle, Plaintiff has suffered serious physical trauma resulting in permanent injuries. Specifically, Plaintiff suffered a torn rotator cuff,  three broken ribs and a herniated disc in the cervical region of her spine. Plaintiff also suffered a ruptured spleen as a result of the accident and had to have her spleen surgically removed.  Plaintiff’s injuries have caused her to suffer severe and continuous pain and will leave her partially disabled. 

        11.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Tortfeasor’s negligence, Plaintiff has been required to undergo extensive medical care and treatment, including two surgeries, countless diagnostic procedures, months of physical therapy, and further rehabilitative treatments. Plaintiff’s injuries will require continuing medical care and treatment for the rest of her life. 

        12.  The accident and Plaintiff’s resulting physical injuries have caused her to suffer extensive and debilitating emotional distress, fear and anxiety. She cannot work or perform even basic household chores.  

        13.  As a further result of the accident and her injuries, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur substantial medical expense and loss of employment income. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Tortfeasor in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) in compensatory damages, plus interest and costs.

COUNT II – Breach of Contract (GEICO)

The allegations set forth in the foregoing numbered paragraphs are incorporated herein.

        14.  At the time of the accident in this case, Defendant Tortfeasor was operating a vehicle that was not covered by any auto liability insurance. Defendant Tortfeasor was therefore an uninsured motorist without coverage to pay any judgment that might result from his negligence. 

        15.  At the time of the accident in this case, the Plaintiff had a valid auto liability insurance policy (Policy # 1003941-20) with Defendant GEICO (the “GEICO Policy”). The GEICO Policy included a provision for uninsured motorist coverage. Under this provision, GEICO was contractually obligated to pay Plaintiff for injuries and losses caused by the negligence of uninsured motorists.  

        16.  Plaintiff fully complied with the terms of the GEICO Policy and all preconditions have been satisfied. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to payment from GEICO for all damages sustained in the accident caused by Defendant Tortfeasor. 

        17.  GEICO has failed to pay Plaintiff any uninsured motorist benefits and has rejected Plaintiff’s reasonable demands for payment. GECIO’s failure to pay uninsured motorist benefits in this case constitutes a material breach of its insurance contract with Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant GEICO in the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) in compensatory damages, plus interest and costs. 

__________________________________

Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Miller & Zois, LLC

1 South St., #2450

Baltimore, MD 21202

410-779-4600

ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, Jane Smith, requests a jury trial on all claims in this Complaint pursuant to Md. Rule 2-325.

Exit mobile version