Maryland Supreme Court Clarifies Postconviction DNA Testing, Settlement Deadlines, and Insurance Claim Assignments

The Maryland Supreme Court recently issued several rulings with significant implications for insurance law and postconviction proceedings. In the criminal law context, the Court reaffirmed the standards governing postconviction DNA testing. In Shepperson v. State, the Court held that inconclusive or non-favorable DNA test results do not warrant a new trial unless they create a substantial possibility that the original conviction was erroneous or if a new trial is in the interest of justice. The decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold and procedural requirements under Maryland Code Criminal Procedure Article § 8-201, emphasizing that an absence of DNA does not necessarily undermine testimony or prior forensic evidence supporting conviction. This ruling informs practitioners about the limitations of postconviction DNA testing as a basis for retrial motions and the judicial discretion in balancing fairness and finality of criminal convictions.

In family law, the Court addressed settlement agreement validity in Pattison v. Pattison, involving timeliness of acceptance of a settlement offer in a divorce proceeding. The Court found no binding agreement where the acceptance occurred after a clearly communicated deadline, underscoring the legal significance of offer conditions and timely execution. This decision highlights the importance of contractual deadlines and communication clarity for settlements in divorce and potentially broader civil litigation contexts.

The Court also ruled on insurance contract assignments in Featherfall Restoration LLC’s case concerning anti-assignment clauses in homeowners’ insurance policies. It distinguished between the assignment of an entire insurance policy, which could be restricted by an anti-assignment clause, and the assignment of specific post-loss claims under the policy, which the Court found permissible. This distinction upholds the assignability of claims without insurer consent, provided the assignment does not transfer the policy contract itself. The ruling clarifies contractual interpretation principles relevant to insurers, restoration companies, and insured parties, influencing claims handling and subrogation practices.

Collectively, these rulings provide important regulatory and procedural clarifications affecting postconviction relief mechanisms, settlement negotiations, and insurance claim assignments. Insurance market participants—particularly legal, claims, and compliance professionals—should note the emphasis on precise contractual language, procedural adherence, and judicial discretion in applying statutory and contractual provisions. These decisions may impact litigation strategies, contract drafting, and dispute resolution processes within Maryland’s legal and insurance environments.