Death of Defendant Limits Recovery of Damages to Insurance Unless Timely Claim to Estate of Decedent
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g3cAFY4m and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-FVAdA7 and at https://lnkd.in/gvh3PTSc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4400 posts.
In Maryland, to facilitate the prompt settlement of decedents’ estates, a person must “present” a claim against an estate within six months after the decedent’s death or two months after the personal representative mails or delivers proper notice of the need to file a claim within two months, whichever comes first. Maryland Code § 8-103(a) of the Estates and Trusts Article (“ET”). In general, if a claimant fails to meet those statutory deadlines, the claim is “forever barred.”
In Nicholas Shanefelter v. James Edward Hood, Jr., No. 1913-2021, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (January 4, 2023) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute by recognizing that if the decedent had insurance coverage for the claim, the claimant need not present a timely claim against the estate, as long as the claimant files suit against the estate before the applicable statute of limitations has run. In that event, a judgment against the estate is not limited to the amount of insurance coverage, but the amount of the judgment that is recoverable from the estate is limited to the amount of the policy. In essence, the case becomes an action against the insurance policy.
In this case, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County employed ET § 8-104(e)(2) to limit the amount recoverable from an estate to the limits of the decedent’s automobile insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2018, appellant Nicholas Shanefelter was involved in an automobile accident with the late James Hood, Jr. At the time of the accident, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. insured the car that Hood was driving.
Hood died on August 4, 2019, of causes unrelated to the accident. On September 30, 2019, Hood’s wife opened an estate on his behalf with the Register of Wills for Anne Arundel County.
On February 20, 2020, Shanefelter filed suit against Hood in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. On March 6, 2020, seven months after Hood’s death, Shanefelter filed a claim against Hood’s estate with the Register of Wills for Anne Arundel County. The claim was untimely.
TRIAL COURT VERDICT
After a two-day trial in October 2021, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Shanefelter and against the estate in the amount of $285,977.69. One week after the verdict, the estate filed a motion and asked the court to limit the amount of the judgment that was recoverable from the estate to the policy limits of $100,000.00. The motion did not expressly assert what the record already showed – i.e., that Shanefelter had failed to present a timely claim under ET § 8-103(a). Shanefelter opposed the estate’s motion, arguing that he had filed a claim against the estate “as soon as he was made aware that Defendant had died” and that the decedent’s insurer, State Farm, “had failed to settle the case in good faith.” Shanefelter did not argue that he had presented a timely claim.
The circuit court granted the estate’s motion in a written order that was docketed on December 3, 2021. The order states, in pertinent part, that the estate’s “liability is limited to Defendant’s liability insurance policy of $100,000.”
In a written order the judgment states, in pertinent part, that “the amount of the judgment that is recoverable from the estate is limited to the amount of the decedent’s liability insurance policy of $100,000.”
DISCUSSION
In its brief, the estate refuted Shanefelter’s assertion that he had filed a timely claim within the deadlines dictated by § 8-103(a). Citing the Register of Wills’ docket sheet for Shanefelter’s claim, which it attached as an appendix to its brief, the estate demonstrated that Shanefelter did not file his claim until March 6, 2020, more than seven months after Hood’s death on August 4, 2019.
The Court of Appeal concluded that Shanefelter’s contentions had no merit. The tacit premise of the estate’s motion to limit liability, understood by all, including the circuit court, was that Shanefelter had not presented a timely claim and thus that § 8-104(e) limited the amount recoverable from the estate. At most, he said only that he had filed the claim as soon as he knew of the decedent’s death, which is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 8-103(a). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying Shanefelter’s Rule 2-535(a) revisory motion.
Because the record includes a copy of the untimely claim that Shanefelter presented more than a month after the statutory deadline had already passed, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was beyond any serious dispute that Shanefelter failed to present a timely claim.
Because of his failure to present a timely claim, Shanefelter could recover, at most, the policy limits of the decedent’s insurance policy
ZALMA OPINION
The Maryland statute is not unusual. Since the estate was established before the suit was filed the plaintiff and his lawyers should have known about the death of the defendant and complied with the requirements of the law. The case went to trial. Shanefelter recevied a favorable verdict but, because of the statute, was limited to the limits of the liability policy issued by State Farm and could not take from the estates assets.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Go to substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud alm(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Go to substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at
Zalma on Insurance
Insurance, insurance claims, insurance law, and insurance fraud .
By Barry Zalma
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-libraryost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH, go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde
Support Excellence in Claims Handling
By Barry Zalma · Launched 2 years ago
A series of writings and/or videos to help understand insurance, insurance claims, and becoming an insurance claims professional and who need to provide or receive competent and Excellence in Claims Handling.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...