Each month, Maryland Auto shares case studies involving our Uninsured Division (UD) and our Special Investigations Unit (SIU). The UD, which is administered by Maryland Auto, handles claims resulting from accidents in which a Maryland resident sustains injuries due to the actions of an uninsured at-fault driver, and no other insurance coverage is available. Our SIU team investigates and works to prevent insurance fraud. This case study presents an example in which the work of both departments intersects.
The claim involved a hit-and-run between two uninsured vehicles, both of which happened to be vans. Van #1 carried a driver and two passengers. Van #2 fled the scene after the accident. Thankfully, the occupants of Van #1 were able to get the license plate number of Van #2 before it drove away. The Baltimore City Police were called and wrote a report identifying the driver of Van #1 and indicating that Van #2, which fled the scene, was operating on an expired temporary tag and was uninsured.
Passengers in Van #1 presented injury claims to the UD. During the investigation, the UD adjuster spoke with the owner of Van #1 who stated that the passengers were her roommates and that her husband, who was not listed on the police report, was the driver. She was not in the vehicle at the time of the crash said she was not familiar with the person listed as the driver in the report. The owner’s husband was not listed on the police report as being involved in the crash, either.
The UD adjuster also spoke with the person listed as the driver of Van #1 on the police report. He could only confirm the facts on the police report and could not explain where he picked up the passengers, how the vehicle was in his possession, or where they were headed at the time of the accident.
As a part of the UD claim process, the Plaintiff must file suit against the responsible party in order to obtain a judgement. Once the case is heard and it is determined whether liability and damages are owed, the UD follows the ruling and either pays or denies the claim on behalf of the responsible uninsured party.
In this case, after the suit was filed against the reported driver of Van #1, the UD adjuster contacted him again. At this point, his story changed. He said that one of the reported passengers was actually driving at the time of the accident. Because the reported passenger was driving on a suspended license, he moved to the driver’s seat to prevent them from getting into trouble. He advised he would testify to this in court.
As discovery was conducted in preparation for the suit, additional credibility issues were noted on the part of several parties. The alleged driver who was a reported passenger on the police report, admitted that he would occasionally drive the vehicle, but insisted he was not driving on the day of the crash. In addition, at the time of the trial, the driver listed on the police report was incarcerated. If required to testify in court, it would be obvious that he’s an inmate and could face additional charges for falsifying a police report.
During the trial, the driver on the police report testified that he was not driving. He gave no other details about the day and kept saying he could not remember what occurred before or after the crash.
The alleged actual driver of the vehicle offered conflicting testimony about how they came to be in the vehicle. Counsel for the UD highlighted that the testimony from the vehicle owner and alleged driver did not make logistical sense and were inconsistent.
Ultimately, verdict was placed by the Judge who did not award anything for the case. Since no award was placed, the UD did not owe any payment for the claim.
The case was forwarded to Maryland Auto’s Special Investigations Unit who then forwarded it to the state’s Insurance Fraud Division.
