USA – MARYLAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Bryan D. Bolton, James F. Taylor and Brett Baulsir, Funk & Bolton, P.A.
not exceed USD30,000”. CJP § 4-401 (1). State Farm moved to dismiss, arguing Bowens needed to prove total damages of USD50,000 from the auto accident in order to recover the remaining USD20,000 available under his UIM coverage. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Circuit Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Maryland disagreed. The Court examined the meaning of “debt or damages claimed” under CJP § 4-401 (1) in conjunction with the UIM provisions of the Insurance Article, which permit an insured to accept a tortfeasor’s settlement without prejudicing a residual claim against the UIM carrier. The Court characterised Bowens’ case as “a first- party coverage dispute—a breach-of-contract action against his insurer—not a tort action”. Bowens , 492 Md. 608, 624. The Court noted that Bowens’ accept- ance of the tortfeasor’s USD30,000 settlement – and State Farm’s consent thereto pursuant to the Insurance Article provisions – extinguished any claim against the tortfeasor for that portion of his injuries and capped State Farm’s UIM contractual liability at USD20,000. Ultimately, the Court held the phrase “debt or dam- ages claimed” in CJP § 4-401 (1) is measured by the amount the plaintiff seeks from the defendant in the pending action. Since Bowens’ residual UIM claim fell within the District Court’s USD30,000 jurisdictional limit, the Court reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. In CareFirst BlueChoice , Inc . v Skipper , 493 Md. 681 (2026), the Maryland Supreme Court reviewed a denial of coverage by CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc. (“CareFirst”) for embryo thawing as part of an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle. The Skippers sought coverage for embryo thawing under their CareFirst health insurance policy, which CareFirst denied based on a policy exclusion for “[o]vum transplants and gamete intra-fallopian tube transfer, zygote intra-fallopian transfer, or cryo- genic or other preservation techniques used in these or similar procedures”. The Skippers received the IVF treatment and paid out-of-pocket for the cost of the embryo thawing procedure. Two years later, the Skippers appealed CareFirst’s denial of the embryo thawing procedure, which Care- First denied as untimely as it was filed beyond the
180-day period allowed by the policy. Id . The Skippers then filed a complaint with the MIA and, while that MIA complaint was pending, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Shortly after the federal court complaint was filed, CareFirst issued a new claim determination and reim- bursed the Skippers’ medical provider for the cost of the embryo thawing. Id . at 691. Based on that change in position, the MIA closed the Skippers’ complaint. The District Court also dismissed the federal class- action complaint, ruling it lacked jurisdiction because the claims failed to meet the applicable damages threshold for federal class-action lawsuits. The Skippers then filed a state court complaint in Maryland Circuit Court, which mirrored the claims and proposed class definition of their federal suit. Care- First moved to dismiss the state court complaint for mootness based on the reimbursement for the embryo thawing claim. The Circuit Court granted CareFirst’s motion to dismiss, finding the reimbursement mooted the claim. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding the claim was not moot because the USD900 payment did not satisfy the Skippers’ claims for pre- judgment interest, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed, finding the Skippers had standing to pursue their claims. The Supreme Court ruled the policy exclusion was not a valid ground for CareFirst’s denial of the embryo thaw- ing procedure because Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 15-810 (c) prohibited CareFirst from excluding all outpatient expenses arising from IVF procedures and required CareFirst to cover IVF expenses “to the same extent as the benefits provided for other pregnancy-related procedures”. In its opinion, the Supreme Court also noted that, under existing Maryland precedent, Frazier v Castle Ford , 430 Md. 144 (2013), “a class action defendant’s tender of individual relief to a putative class represent- ative does not moot a class action lawsuit before the representative has a reasonable opportunity to seek class certification”. The Supreme Court extended this holding to circumstances in which “a putative class
329 I NSURANCE L I T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook