Sample Uninsured Motorist Complaint in District Court

THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND

NATASHA BEVENS
- Plaintiff

v

DOMINIC PALACE
and
MARIO WILCHAZ
and
GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY
- Defendant

CASE NO. 0702-0000000-2005

Plaintiff, Natasha Bevens, (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) by and through her attorneys Laura G. Zois and Miller & Zois, LLC brings ther personal injury lawsuit against the Defendants Dominic Palace, Mario Wilchaz and GEICO (hereinafter referred to as Defendants) and in support thereof states as follows:

FACTS

  1. On or about, April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, Natasha Bevens, was lawfully operating and traveling in an automobile on Riggs Road in the State of Maryland.
  2. At the same time and place, the Defendant, Mario Wilchaz (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Driver One) was operating an automobile e taking a left hand turn from Merrimac Drive onto Riggs Road in the State of Maryland.
  3. At the same time and place, the Defendant, Dominic Palace, (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Driver Two ) was operating a motor vehicle on Riggs Road in the State of Maryland.
  4. The Defendant Drivers One and Two failed to control their vehicles and struck the vehicle occupied by the Plaintiff.
  5. At all times herein mentioned, the Plaintiff's vehicle was operated in a reasonable and prudent manner, with due caution and regard for the motor vehicle laws of the State of Maryland.
  6. At the time of the car accident the Plaintiff had a valid policy of Insurance with the Defendant GEICO at the time of the accident and the Defendant Insurance company has failed to make payments under the policy.
  7. That the Drivers of the at-fault vehicle does not have adequate insurance to cover the damages sustained by the Plaintiff.

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT WILCHAZ

The Plaintiff incorporates herein all preceding paragraphs.

  1. The Defendant Driver One had a duty to act reasonable and use due care while driving. The Defendant Driver had a duty to pay attention to traffic, to maintain a proper lookout, to obey traffic control devices, to obey the laws and rules of the State of Maryland, to maintain proper speed for the conditions, to reduce speed to avoid an accident, to maintain a proper distance between vehicles and to control their vehicle to avoid a collision.
  2. The Defendant Driver One breached that duty of due care by failing pay proper attention to the roadway and the traffic, failing to maintain a proper lookout, failing to obey the traffic control device, failing to obey the laws and rules of the State of Maryland, failing to maintain proper speed for the conditions, failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident, failing to maintain a proper distance between vehicles, and failing to control their vehicle in order to avoid a collision.
  3. Uninsured Motorist Cases
  4. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Driver One, the Plaintiff suffered physical injuries and mental anguish. The Plaintiff has past medical expenses, past lost wages, and past pain and suffering. The Plaintiff may have future medical expenses and future lost wages. The Plaintiff injuries from the accident with the Defendant Driver are permanent. Finally the Plaintiff, has suffered property damage, loss of use, loss of personal property and has incurred rental car expenses and towing expenses.
  5. All the above damages were directly and proximately caused by the aforementioned negligence of the Defendant Driver One, and were incurred without contributory negligence or assumption of the risk on the part of the Plaintiff, or an opportunity for the Plaintiff, to avoid the accident.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant Driver One in the amount of $30,000.00 plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT PALACE

The Plaintiff incorporates herein all preceding paragraphs.

  1. The Defendant Driver Two had a duty to act reasonable and use due care while driving. The Defendant Driver had a duty to pay attention to traffic, to maintain a proper lookout, to obey traffic control devices, to obey the laws and rules of the State of Maryland, to maintain proper speed for the conditions, to reduce speed to avoid a car accident, to maintain a proper distance between vehicles and to control their vehicle to avoid a collision.
  2. accidentlawsuit
  3. The Defendant Driver Two breached that duty of due care by failing pay proper attention to the roadway and the traffic, failing to maintain a proper lookout, failing to obey the traffic control device, failing to obey the laws and rules of the State of Maryland, failing to maintain proper speed for the conditions, failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident, failing to maintain a proper distance between vehicles, and failing to control their vehicle in order to avoid a collision.
  4. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Driver Two, the Plaintiff suffered physical injuries and mental anguish. The Plaintiff has past medical expenses, past lost wages, and past pain and suffering. The Plaintiff may have future medical expenses and future lost wages. The Plaintiff injuries from the accident with the Defendant Driver are permanent. Finally the Plaintiff, has suffered property damage, loss of use, loss of personal property and has incurred rental car expenses and towing expenses.
  5. All the above damages were directly and proximately caused by the aforementioned negligence of the Defendant Driver Two, and were incurred without contributory negligence or assumption of the risk on the part of the Plaintiff, or an opportunity for the Plaintiff, to avoid the accident.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant Driver Two in the amount of $30,000.00 plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III - BREACH OF CONTRACT

The Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein all of the above paragraphs.

  1. At the time of the accident, the vehicles being operated by the Defendants were uninsured, or in the alternative, that any insurance in force on the vehicle did not and does not, provide adequate coverage for the claims and damages asserted by the Plaintiff.
  2. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff had in force a policy of automobile insurance issued by Defendant GEICO, Said policy of insurance contained a provision for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage which provided, among other things, insurance coverage for losses and damages sustained in accidents which were caused by the negligent operation of a vehicle by third persons, when that vehicle is uninsured or underinsured at the time of the accident, and the third person is not otherwise entitled to coverage.
  3. The Plaintiff has complied with the terms of the contract with the Defendant GEICO and is entitled to be paid by the Defendant any and all damages sustained by the Plaintiff resulting form the negligence of the Defendants.
  4. The Defendant GEICO, has breached its contract with the Plaintiff by failing to make any payments to the Plaintiff’s under the uninsured motorist provision of the Plaintiff’s policy.
    WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, demands judgment be entered against the Defendant, GEICO for compensatory damages in the amount of $30,000.00, plus costs, pre-judgment interest, and post- judgment interest
    Respectfully submitted,

MILLER & ZOIS, LLC
Laura G. Zois
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410)779-4600
(410)760-8922 (Fax)
Attorney for the Plaintiff

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was sent via U.S. Mail on April 12, 2014:

Joseph J. Mulhern, Esquire
77 West Street, Suite 110
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Attorney for Defendant Vilchez

Karen A. Besok, Esquire
Besok & Mullen
231 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 901
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Attorney for Defendant GEICO

Contact Us For a Free Consultation

If you are hurt in a serious accident or are the victim of medical malpractice, contact our team of lawyers to discuss your case.
Call us now for help at (800) 553-8082

You can also get a FREE no obligation on-line consultation.

Client Reviews

  • They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives.
    ★★★★★
  • Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for.
    ★★★★★
  • Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone!
    ★★★★★
  • The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million.
    ★★★★★
  • I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois.
    ★★★★★
  • The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable.
    ★★★★★
  • The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement.
    ★★★★★
  • Miller and Zois is the best firm in the state of Maryland, and without their support, understanding, and just being there when I needed encouragement, I truly do not know how I would have succeeded without them.
    ★★★★★

Contact Us

Free Consultation (800) 553-8082 Call 24/7