Conviction in Fatal Maryland Crash Reversed on Insurance Technicality

February 29, 2016

  • February 29, 2016 at 1:37 pm
    Hmmmmm says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    I wonder how the statute is worded for mandatory auto insurance? If the statute says that all residents must have auto insurance, then I can see the technicality problem. If the statute reads that anyone operating a vehicle within the state must have auto insurance, then it should not matter that the guilty party is from another state.

    • February 29, 2016 at 3:12 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Do you know if Maryland has a deemer statute?

  • February 29, 2016 at 3:44 pm
    Wally says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Why is this an insurance technicality?

    • February 29, 2016 at 5:37 pm
      Hmmmmm says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      It is not an insurance technicality — it is a statute technicality. When the courts overturned the case, it said that since the at-fault party was from West Virginia, the statute of mandatory auto insurance did not apply to her. Since the statute didn’t apply to her, then she couldn’t be convicted of not having auto insurance (seems wrong to me).

  • February 29, 2016 at 4:51 pm
    Spear says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    What about the life of a 5-yr old child? Shouldn’t that be the issue here?

    • February 29, 2016 at 5:37 pm
      Hmmmmm says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Totally agree with you Spear….

  • March 1, 2016 at 10:34 am
    BetterCallSaul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Honestly this story makes me sick. I agree with Hmmmmm that this is more a statute technicality, not an insurance technicality. I am not even going to say it SEEMS unfair and unjust, it IS unfair and unjust. This woman should go to prison for killing that family’s child.

  • March 3, 2016 at 1:19 pm
    Shari says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    She was jailed for no insurance, not for vehicular homicide or manslaughter. She should have been charged with that. And since she had no insurance, the family has no civil recourse either.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*