An Uninsured Driver, a Speeding Teen, and Three Claims on One Maryland Auto Policy

Yes. Maryland's required PIP is no-fault: it pays the insured's medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the collision, so Marcus's speeding is irrelevant to the PIP claim. With $2,500 of PIP on the policy and no waiver, $2,500 responds to his $24,000 of medical and wage loss - first dollar, before any liability or UM analysis.

The waiver point is the exam trap. Maryland permits an insured to waive PIP in writing, but the waiver operates only against the named insured and family members age 16 or older who sign it. Nothing was signed here, so the $2,500 applies to Marcus as a resident family member and to Denise. Had Denise signed a waiver naming herself only, Marcus's coverage would still stand. Had Marcus signed at 19, his PIP would be gone but Kayla's - as a non-family guest occupant - would not be affected by his waiver.

Sequence the file: PIP first, then liability/UM for the excess. PIP is not a substitute for the tort claim; it is the front-end benefit that keeps the small medical bills out of the tort system.

UM is fault-based: the insurer stands in the shoes of the uninsured driver and inherits every defense that driver could raise. In Maryland that includes pure contributory negligence - if Marcus's negligence contributed in any degree to the collision, his recovery is barred entirely. There is no 51% threshold and no comparative reduction; it is all or nothing.

So the analysis runs:

• Coverage exists in principle. The other driver was uninsured, and Marcus is an insured under Denise's UM coverage at 30/60.
• But liability is contestable. Traveling 46 in a 30 is negligence per se and, more importantly, evidence of causal contribution - a jury could find the crash would not have occurred at 30 mph. The UM carrier will raise it.
• Ceiling. Even if Marcus is fault-free, UM pays at most the $30,000 per-person limit against his $24,000 economic loss plus general damages. Medical payments made under PIP for the same element of loss are typically credited against the UM recovery under the form's offset provision - read that clause before committing to a number.

Practical judgment: do not tender the $30,000 limit to close a file where the claimant's own conduct is a complete bar. Investigate speed, sight lines, and the point of impact; obtain the crash reconstruction. Marcus's realistic exposure is that he recovers PIP only.

Kayla is a guest passenger with no fault of her own, which changes everything.

1. Denise's UM ($30,000 per person). Kayla is an insured under the policy she was riding in, so the host's UM responds to the uninsured driver's negligence. Her $40,000 in bills consumes the full 30/60 per-person limit of $30,000.
2. Her own family UM (100/300). As a resident relative of her parents' named insured, she is an insured under that policy as well. Excess/other-insurance clauses normally make the host's coverage primary and the resident policy excess - so the remaining $10,000 is recoverable there, up to the $100,000 per-person limit.
3. Liability coverage is a dead end for her. Marcus was negligent, so Kayla could assert a liability claim against him - but that claim is paid from the same 30/60/15 policy and the same per-person limit she has already exhausted. She cannot collect the limit twice, once as a liability claimant and once as a UM claimant.

Watch the per-accident limit: 30/60 means $30,000 per person and $60,000 for all bodily injury in the accident. Marcus at $30,000 plus Kayla at $30,000 exhausts the $60,000 aggregate, which flatly caps Kayla's host-policy recovery even before the per-person analysis. Her parents' excess UM is the practical source of the remaining $10,000 - confirm the other-insurance wording before advising her.