According to the complaint, Charles H. Marks, IV was driving his Nissan van northbound on I-95 on January 30, 2022, when an unidentified blue sedan nearly collided with him during a lane change. The sedan's occupants then pursued Marks aggressively through traffic, maneuvered alongside his van near Maryland Route 100, and shot him in the left temple with a .22 caliber bullet. Marks lost control of the van, struck the median barrier, and was transported to University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center. He died approximately 25 hours later. The blue sedan sped away and was never identified.
Jennifer Marks, as surviving spouse and personal representative of her husband's estate, filed seven breach-of-contract claims against Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina, which had issued the policy covering the van. The policy included uninsured motorist coverage requiring that damages arise from the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Selective moved to dismiss, arguing the intentional shooting was not an accident under the policy and that the required nexus between the injury and vehicle use was absent.
Judge Julie R. Rubin of the District of Maryland denied the motion on both grounds. On the accident question, the court held that neither the policy's definition nor Maryland's uninsured motorist statute expressly excludes intentional conduct, and that existing case law does not support Selective's position. The court noted that the Maryland Appellate Court had previously held in Harris v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. that the term accident encompasses all incidents involving an automobile, whether intentional or unintentional.
The more substantial fight was over the nexus requirement. Selective relied on three Maryland decisions — State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. DeHaan, Mincey v. State Farm Ins. Co., and Wright v. Allstate Ins. Co. — each of which involved shootings connected to stationary vehicles and each of which found the required nexus lacking. Judge Rubin distinguished all three. In DeHaan, the shooter was sitting in a parked car with the ignition off. In Mincey, the fatal punch occurred outside the vehicles and was unrelated to their use. In Wright, the shooter approached on foot and opened fire, and the car served only as transportation to the scene.
Here, the court reasoned, the allegations describe a materially different situation: no preexisting relationship or motive, a near-collision triggering the confrontation, and the shooter firing from a moving vehicle driving alongside the victim's moving van. The court concluded that, as alleged, the cars were directly causally connected to the injuries sustained, and that plaintiffs plausibly alleged the necessary nexus between the decedent's injury and the uninsured vehicle. The court left Selective free to renew its arguments at summary judgment on a full record.
The ruling has potential significance for how Maryland's nexus requirement applies to road-rage shootings, a fact pattern the cited precedents did not address.