Maryland top court’s new term underway

During the 2014-2015 term, which started Sept. 3, the Court of Appeals will decide whether a police officer’s actions can be so egregious as to nullify a cap on damages under Maryland’s Local Government Tort Claims Act. Specifically, the high court will determine whether Prince George’s County owes the family of a man killed by a police officer the $11.5 million a jury awarded, or the $400,000 the judge ultimately awarded under the LGTCA.

The Court of Appeals will also consider whether a Salisbury hospital can be held liable for releasing a suicidal patient who goaded police into killing him that same night. Lower courts had dismissed the lawsuit, saying mental health providers cannot be held liable under Maryland law for deciding against admitting a patient involuntarily so long as the decision was in good faith and based on reasonable grounds.

In addition, the high court will re-examine its long-held view that judges must defer to an insurance company’s interpretation of its policy terms so long as the insurer acted in good faith and the interpretation reflects the ordinary and reasonable understanding of the words. Consumer advocates have argued that insurance terms should be read liberally in favor of the policy holders — not the insurance companies that drafted the policies.

The three cases are among approximately 130 the Court of Appeals will hear between this term’s first argument session, which began at 10 a.m. Sept. 3, and the last, which will be held in June. Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera has pledged that all cases heard during the term will be decided no later than Aug. 31, the last day of the court’s 2014-2015 term.

With regard to the police brutality case, plaintiffs’ attorney Robert J. Zarbin — who is not involved in the litigation — said convincing the Court of Appeals to rule that LGTCA cap does not apply will be “really tough” in light of strong precedent favoring the statutory limit on damages.

Judges have an “unwritten sympathy for the counties” because they are often under difficult budgetary constraints and would be unable to pay large awards, said Zarbin, of the Maryland Association for Justice, an organization of plaintiffs’ attorneys.

But a strong legal argument can be made that the cap should not apply when the brutality has been especially heinous and violates the victim’s constitutional rights, added Zarbin, an Upper Marlboro solo practitioner.

“We want a police force, but we don’t authorize the police to batter people,” added Zarbin.

The police brutality appeal was brought by the widow and adult son of Manuel Espina, who was killed by an off-duty officer in 2008.

A Prince George’s County Circuit Court jury found the officer had violated Espina’s constitutional rights and assessed damages of $11.5 million. But the trial judge reduced the award to $200,000 per plaintiff under the LGTCA.

The Court of Special Appeals upheld the reduction last December, saying the cap covers “damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions,” including constitutional torts.

The case is Estela Espina v. Steven Jackson et. al, No. 35, September Term 2014. An argument date has not been set.

In the mental-health case, Charles Williams Jr.’s family alleges that Peninsula Regional Medical Center negligently failed to admit him involuntarily after he told doctors of his suicidal thoughts, his hallucinations and his belief that his ex-girlfriend had put a curse on him.

The family disputes the lower courts’ interpretation of the immunity afforded to mental health providers under the Maryland Health-General Article.

The statutory provision, Section 10-618, immunizes hospitals from liability if a decision on a patient’s involuntary admission was made in good faith and based on reasonable grounds.

Williams’ family does not challenge the hospital’s good faith or reasonableness. Instead, they argue that the immunity applies only when the hospital admits a patient. Peninsula Regional counters that the immunity also applies to decisions not to admit the patient.

Richard Boldt, a professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, called it a “difficult” question but said the hospital may have the stronger argument, based on both the law and public policy.

Limiting immunity to involuntary admissions could skew the decision-making in that direction, said Boldt, who teaches both torts and mental disability law.

“I think there’s a strong argument for reading the immunity provision in both directions in order to support mental health professionals who in good faith exercise extremely difficult judgment in difficult circumstances,” Boldt added.

Concerned for her son’s mental health in April 2009, Gineene Williams brought Charles to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with insomnia, fatigue and bizarre behavior. Doctors prescribed anti-insomnia medicine and told his mother to remove guns from with house, follow up with a clinic the next day and return to the hospital if the symptoms became worse, according to court papers.

Williams, who refused to discuss being admitted, left the hospital and broke into a house shortly before midnight. A resident called police, who arrived to find Williams in the front yard, holding a knife to his own throat and telling the officers to “shoot me. I want to die.”

When the officers told Williams to drop the knife, he charged at them. The officers shot and killed him.

The case is Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, No. 18, Sept. Term 2014. Arguments are scheduled for Oct. 3.

In the insurance case, Gregory and Moira Taylor are urging the high court to abandon the deference it has shown to insurers since 1837 with regard to interpreting terms in a policy.

The high court should join the overwhelming majority of states that say unclear terms in insurance companies should be interpreted in favor of the policy holder, the family argues through Maryland People’s Insurance Counsel Peter K. Killough.

“Maryland law has been skewed for over a century in favor of insurance companies, and it is time to balance the analysis,” Killough wrote in papers filed with the high court. Calling the results in the Taylor case “anti-consumer,” he noted that 44 other states “require insurance policies to be construed liberally in favor of the insured.”

In January, after the court agreed to hear Killough’s appeal, State Farm’s attorney said the current legal standard should be retained. “You can’t possibly define every single term in an insurance policy or else it would be an encyclopedia,” said Michael J. Budow of Budow and Noble P.C. in Bethesda. “So, you take the ordinary and reasonable meaning.”

The Taylors filed their insurance claim after their carport collapsed under the weight of ice and snow.

Their homeowners’ policy from State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. included coverage for the collapse of a building, but did not define the term “building.”

State Farm denied the claim, saying the carport was not a building because it had 10 poles and no walls, while a building would need at least three walls.

The Maryland insurance commissioner, a circuit court and the Court of Special Appeals have each held that State Farm concluded in good faith that a carport is not a “building” under the ordinary and reasonable understanding of that word, prompting the appeal from the Taylors and Killough, the state’s chief advocate for insured Marylanders.

The case is People’s Insurance Counsel Division v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., No. 21, Sept. Term 2014. Arguments are scheduled for Nov. 10.

___

Information from: The Daily Record of Baltimore, http://www.mddailyrecord.com