Author: JGL Law

Whether your car insurance premium increases after an accident depends on where you live.

It’s a fact of life, being in any car accident can be stressful, whether or not you are at fault. Many people fear their own car insurance premiums will increase if they tell their insurance company, but this is not always the case. However, even if the other driver caused the accident, you might still see an increase in your premium. Why?

How Car Insurance Premiums Work After an Accident

The moment an accident gets reported, insurance companies start assessing the situation. If you were at fault, expect your rate to go up. The increase depends on how serious the accident was and how much your insurer ends up paying. Even a minor fender bender can lead to a higher premium, though the jump won’t be as steep as it would be for a major collision.

Your car insurance premiums are based on a number of factors, including your driving history, the severity of the accident, and where you live. Even if the accident was not your fault, insurance companies look at a few things:

• Increased Risk Profile: If you have been involved in an accident, insurers may view you as a higher risk, regardless of fault.
• State Laws and Regulations: Some states allow insurers to increase rates after a claim, while some states protect drivers from unfair hikes.
• Claim Frequency: If your insurer notices several claims on your policy, even if you were not at fault, they may increase premiums to offset potential future losses.

Maryland Residents

Can your rates increase? The answer is yes; possibly even if the accident was not your fault. There is one type of insurance claim that will not increase your premium, and that is a Personal Injury Protection (PIP coverage) claim. If you file a PIP claim for medical expenses or lost wages, this cannot be held against you and later increase your premiums, regardless of who is at fault.

The issue insurers really analyze is how many UM (Uninsured Motorist) and UIM (Underinsured Motorist) claims you’ve had on your policy. If you read your insurance policy carefully, you may see this listed as UMPD (Uninsured Motorist Property Damage Claim), or UMBI (Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury Claim), along with a value for your deductible. Your Uninsured Motorist coverage will pay for damages to your car or pay to settle your injury claim if the at-fault driver had low or no insurance coverage.

 An at-fault driver without insurance is considered “uninsured” if:

• the at-fault driver does not have insurance;
• the other driver and vehicle are unknown, such as a hit and run collision; or
• the at-fault driver’s insurance company has denied coverage because the other driver violated the terms of their auto insurance policy.

But beware, if you are involved in an accident in one of these situations, you will need to file an uninsured motorist claim under your own policy. But before you do that, there are a few things to know:

• In Maryland, uninsured motorist coverage only applies if the other driver is found to be 100% at fault. If you are found to be even 1% at fault, you cannot collect due to Maryland’s contributory negligence laws.

• For an uninsured motorist claim, many insurance companies require you to call the police immediately and report the claim. These requirements can be found within your insurance policy, or you can contact your insurance company to inquire.

• Filing an uninsured motorist claim may affect your premiums and you may need to pay more for your policy. An insurance company is allowed to rerate your policy and remove certain discounts if you file an uninsured motorist claim. The claim will not cause a surcharge, but in most cases, the claim may have a negative impact on your insurance costs.

Statutory Rules in Maryland

Under Maryland law, an “increase in premium” includes a surcharge, which is the retiering or reclassification of an insurance policy or the removal of an insurance discount. Md. Insurance Code Ann. § 27-614, Md. Insurance Code Ann. § 19-507

If your insurance company increases the premium for a private passenger motor vehicle, they must provide you with written notice at least 45 days before the effective date of the increase. Md. Insurance Code Ann. § 27-614

If the increase is due “wholly or partly to an accident,” the notice must be clear and specifically state the basis for the increase. The notice must include:

• The name of the driver
• The date of the accident
• “If fault is a material factor” for the insurer’s action, a statement that the driver was at fault. Md. Insurance Code Ann. § 27-614
• The notice must specify that the driver was at fault, ONLY if fault is a material factor in the premium increase. This means Maryland law allows insurers to legally increase premiums for reasons where an individual’s fault is not a material factor.

Consumer Protections in Maryland

You have the following options:

• Right to Protest: If you believe your rate is being increased improperly because you were not at fault, you may contact your insurance provider to request a review. You may also file a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) within 30 days of receiving the increase notice.
• Notice Requirements: The 45-day notice does not apply if the premium increase is part of a general statewide rate increase filed with the state that does not result from reclassifying an individual.
• Non-Renewal vs. Premium Increases: While your rate may increase, Maryland law prohibits an insurer from cancelling or refusing to renew coverage based on claims history when two or fewer claims during the preceding three-year period were for accidents or losses where the insured was not at fault. Claims under uninsured motorist and comprehensive coverage are presumed not to be at-fault.

District of Columbia Residents

Under D.C. law, your car insurance premium cannot be increased solely on account of an auto accident where it is determined you were not at fault. D.C. Code § 31-2406

The District of Columbia strictly regulates when an insurance company may increase an insured’s rates following an accident. No insurer authorized to sell motor vehicle insurance in the District shall increase the rates charged an insured on account of an accident, unless it is first determined that the accident was caused by the fault of the insured. D.C. Code § 31-2406

Statutory Rules in Washington D.C.

This statutory protection aligns with the broader legislative framework of the District of Columbia Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. While the District’s insurance system utilizes compulsory coverages and restricts certain tort litigation to make recovery for economic losses more readily available (D.C. Code § 31-2401, Monroe v. Foreman, 540 A.2d 736), the law explicitly protects policyholders from premium penalties when they are entirely free from fault in an accident. D.C. Code § 31-2406

No insurer shall cancel a policy except:

• For refusal or failure of the insured to pay a premium due under the terms of the policy of motor vehicle insurance;

• Where the motor vehicle registration certificate of the insured has been suspended or revoked during the policy of motor vehicle insurance; or

• Where the license of an insured has been suspended or revoked during the period of motor vehicle insurance, the insurance shall not provide coverage for such insured during the period of suspension or revocation.

The term “uninsured motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle that:

• Is a motor vehicle that is not insured by a motor vehicle liability policy applicable to the accident;

• Is covered by a motor vehicle liability policy of insurance but the insurer denies coverage for any reason or becomes the subject of insolvency proceedings in any jurisdiction; or

• Is a motor vehicle that causes bodily injury or property damage and whose owner or operator cannot be identified.

Exceptions and Qualifications

While an insurer is explicitly barred from raising your premium “on account of an accident” where you were not at fault D.C. Code § 31-2406, there are broader risk-classification and rating adjustments permitted under District law that are not tied to individual accident fault:

• Systemic Rate and Class Adjustments: Under D.C. Code § 31-2703(c), insurers are permitted to establish or modify risk classifications based on “reasonable considerations” such as individual experience, location or dispersion of hazard, size, expense, or management, provided these classifications apply uniformly to all risks under substantially similar circumstances. D.C. Code § 31-2703

• Lack of Rate Uniformity: District law does not require uniformity in insurance rates, classifications, or rating plans across different companies. D.C. Code § 31-2703 Insurers periodically file for systemic rate increases or adjustments with the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking based on overall financial and loss records. D.C. Code § 31-2703, Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Montgomery, 465 A.2d 813

Remember, if you are involved in an auto accident in Washington, D.C., and it is determined that you were not at fault, your insurer is statutorily prohibited from increasing your insurance premium because of that accident.

However, this does not prevent your insurer from adjusting your premiums in the future due to broad, non-accident-specific rate restructurings or general changes to risk classifications approved under District law.

Virginia Residents

Under Virginia law, an insurer generally cannot increase your car insurance premium or charge points under a safe driver insurance plan if you are involved in an auto accident that was not your fault. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

Statutory Restrictions on Premium Increases

Under Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905, an insurer is strictly prohibited from increasing an insured’s premium or charging points under a safe driver insurance plan, whether applicable to commercial or private passenger vehicles, as a result of a motor vehicle accident unless the accident was wholly or partially caused by the named insured, a resident of the same household, or another customary operator. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

Furthermore, no insurer may charge points or increase the insured’s premium under a commercial or private passenger automobile policy due to an accident if the operator causing the accident is a principal operator insured under a separate policy. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

No insurer shall assign points under a safe-driver insurance policy to any vehicle other than the vehicle customarily driven by the operator responsible for incurring points. This policy prevents punishment to the owner/principal operator of a vehicle for entrusting the vehicle to an insured driver who is insured under another policy.

For law-enforcement officers, Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905 provides additional protections, stating that an insurer cannot increase an officer’s personal insurance premium or charge points under a safe driver insurance plan for an accident that occurred in the course of employment while the officer was driving an agency-provided vehicle and engaged in law-enforcement activity. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

Administrative Guidance and Fault Determination

Virginia administrative guidelines clarify that insurers must have actual proof of fault before increasing a premium or assigning points (Virginia Insurance Notices and Bulletins).

A Virginia motor vehicle report only indicates that a driver was involved in an accident, not who was at fault; therefore, insurers must conduct additional research to determine fault. General justifications such as “failure to maintain control of the vehicle” do not constitute sufficient evidence of fault without supporting information.

Additionally, for personal auto programs, insurers are prohibited from using “not-at-fault” accidents—which include medical expense claims, income loss benefits claims, uninsured motorist claims, and comprehensive losses—to determine tier eligibility for renewals. Doing so is recognized as a practice that could result in an unlawful premium increase for an accident not caused wholly or partially by the insured in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905.

Notice Requirements and Right to Appeal

If an insurer increases an insurance premium or charges points as a result of a motor vehicle accident, it must notify the named insured in writing. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905 This notification must inform the insured of their right to appeal the decision to the Commissioner of Insurance if they believe the premium increase or point charge was applied without just cause. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

• Timeline: The insured must request the appeal in writing within 60 days of receiving the notice of the premium adjustment or point charge. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

• Appeal Process: Upon receiving the request, the Commissioner will promptly initiate a review to determine whether the premium increase or point charge is justified. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

• Interim Rates: The increased premium or point charge remains in effect while the appeal is pending. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

• Refunds: If the Commissioner rules that the increase or point charge is not justified, or was not assigned in accordance with the insurer’s filed rating plan, the insurer must promptly refund any premiums paid as a direct result of the unjustified increase and adjust all future billings. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1905

Qualifications and Limitations

The statutory prohibition against increasing premiums for not-at-fault accidents does not restrict insurers from adjusting general, non-accident-related rate factors that are filed with and approved by the State Corporation Commission. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1904, Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1906

All rates and all changes and amendments to rates under Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1904, for use in the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall consider loss experience and other factors within Virginia if relevant and actuarially sound, provided that other data, including countrywide, regional, or other state data, may be considered where such data is relevant and where a sound actuarial basis exists for considering data other than Virginia-specific data. Therefore, if there is a reasonable and probable basis to do so, rates and changes may be based on data other than Virginia-specific data.

Insurers are permitted to group risks by classifications and modify rates for individual risks in accordance with rating plans that measure variations in hazards or expenses, provided the rates are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, and are based on sound actuarial principles. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1904

In addition, there is a time limit on how long the increased rates are in effect due to an at-fault accident. If an insurer does permissibly increase rates or apply surcharges due to an at-fault accident or a motor vehicle conviction, it cannot use that information to produce increased or surcharged rates above their filed manual rates for a period longer than 36 months, beginning no later than 12 months after the date of the accident or conviction. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-1904

In summary, Virginia law protects policyholders from facing increased car insurance premiums or safe driver point penalties for accidents in which they were not at fault. Insurers must establish proof of fault before adjusting rates due to an accident, notify the insured of any such adjustments, and provide a clear statutory pathway for the insured to appeal unjustified increases to the Commissioner of Insurance.

In Conclusion

Dealing with insurance companies after a crash can be stressful for any driver—and the laws are different in every state. If you have been involved in an automobile accident, it is important to understand your rights and the terms of your insurance policy.

Get the facts. Get educated.

JGL lawyers have once again been recognized as leading lawyers in their fields by The Best Lawyers in America^®, a prestigious honor based entirely on peer review. Nineteen JGL attorneys were named to The Best Lawyers in America list, and one attorney was honored in the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch^® category, which celebrates outstanding early-career lawyers who have been in private practice for less than 10 years.

As the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession, Best Lawyers is widely regarded as a benchmark for excellence. Its rigorous and transparent methodology is based on confidential evaluations from leading lawyers within the same geographical and practice areas.

The JGL attorneys recognized on the lists include:

The Best Lawyers in America 2027

Alyse Prawde

• Appellate Practice
• Commercial Litigation

Andrew Adelman

• Civil Rights Law
• Employment Law – Individuals
• Litigation – Labor & Employment

Andrew E. Greenwald

• Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs
• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Brian J. Markovitz

• Litigation – Labor and Employment

David Bulitt

• Collaborative Law: Family Law
• Family Law
• Family Law Mediation

Drew LaFramboise

• Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs

Erika Jacobsen White

• Employment Law – Individuals

Jay P. Holland

• Appellate Practice
• Civil Rights Law
• Employment Law – Individuals
• Qui Tam Law

Jeffrey Hannon

• Family Law

Jeffrey N. Greenblatt

• Family Law

Lindsay Parvis

• Collaborative Law: Family Law
• Family Law
• Family Law Arbitration
• Family Law Mediation

Michal Shinnar

• Civil Rights Law
• Employment Law – Individuals
• Litigation – Labor and Employment

Paul F. Riekhof

• Litigation – Trusts and Estates

Roy Niedermayer

• Litigation – Trusts and Estates

Steven M. Pavsner

• Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs
• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Timothy F. Maloney

• Appellate Practice
• Employment Law – Individuals
• Employment Law – Management

Timothy P. O’Brien

• Trusts and Estates

Valerie Grove

• Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs

Veronica Nannis

• Employment Law – Individuals
• Commercial Litigation
• Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs

2027 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

Bridget Cardinale

• Civil Rights
• Commercial Litigation

This article is co-authored by associate Deborah Jaffe and JGL law clerk Grace McKaveney.

About a third of prisoner civil rights cases filed in federal district courts fail because of strict requirements set by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

In 1996, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to reduce the number of frivolous civil rights lawsuits filed by incarcerated people. And technically, it worked. However, in doing so, it has made it more difficult for incarcerated people to file meritorious lawsuits about unlawful conditions or treatment they have faced by placing rules and limitations on such filings. If you or a loved one is considering suing in federal court, it is important to know what barriers you may face.

What Claims You Can Bring

If you are incarcerated and have been subjected to cruel or unusual punishment during confinement in violation of your constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment, you may consider suing the prison or prison staff for the deprivation of your rights. Before you do, it is important to consider whether your claim may be barred by the PLRA.

The Exhaustion Requirement

Incarcerated people must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. This means that you must go through the prison’s own grievance and appeal process before you can sue in federal court. The court may dismiss your claim if the opposing party says and proves that you did not finish every step of the internal grievance process.

In Maryland, incarcerated people must use the Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) if they want to file a complaint about their conditions of confinement. This includes complaints about medical and mental health services, lost or stolen property, staff behavior, conditions affecting their health, safety, or welfare, and more. For example, someone who was not given the medication they need on time or someone who lives in a hazardous cell may file an ARP.

This process has three steps:

• First, you must file an ARP within thirty days after the incident occurred or you learned about the incident, whichever is later, to the prison’s managing official, typically the Warden.
• Second, if the managing official denies your initial ARP or fails to respond to the ARP within the established timeframe, you have thirty days to file an appeal to the Commissioner of Correction.
• Third, if the Commissioner of Correction denies that appeal, you have thirty days to file another appeal to the Inmate Grievance Office.

Notably, this process is not available for complaints involving case management decisions, parole decisions, disciplinary decisions, appeals to withhold mail, or acts by staff or other inmates falling under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

The Physical Injury Requirement

Incarcerated people are prevented from recovering damages for a mental or emotional injury they suffered while in custody without also showing some physical injury or sexual act. This requirement bars incarcerated people from recovering compensatory damages, or money to make them whole, but does not bar nominal damage or injunctive and declaratory relief. In other words, without a showing of physical injury, you may still be able to obtain a small amount of money to recognize your rights were violated (like $1), a court order telling someone what to do or not do, or an official statement from the court stating what your legal rights are.

What You Should Know Before You Bring a Claim

Even if you have a claim, it is important to know that there are financial barriers under the PLRA that may affect your ability to file a lawsuit.

Filing Fees

Incarcerated people must pay court filing fees in full regardless of their ability to pay such fees. The initial cost to file a complaint is $405, or $350 for those who proceed in forma pauperis, meaning they cannot afford to pay everything upfront. Inmates who proceed in forma pauperis pay these fees through monthly installments based on the amount in their account. This monthly installment scheme applies even when a case is dismissed or withdrawn, and payments continue until the filing fees are paid in full.

The Three Strikes Provision

A dismissal of an incarcerated person’s lawsuit or appeal as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” against them. If an incarcerated person receives three or more “strikes,” they cannot proceed with a new suit in forma pauperis, or without prepaying all the filing fees in full. However, there is an exception to the “three strikes” provision if an inmate is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. For example, someone with asthma who alleges that they are repeatedly denied proper medical care is under imminent danger of serious physical injury and may file in forma pauperis, despite already having three strikes.

Key Takeaways

Since Congress passed the PLRA, the filing rate has dropped about 36 percent, as of 2020. While it has been effective in limiting the number of frivolous lawsuits, the PLRA is widely criticized for establishing significant procedural and financial barriers for incarcerated people, which can prevent meritorious claims from being heard. By understanding the requirements and limitations set by the PLRA, you can better navigate the legal system and use your voice to seek justice.

In an August 5, 2026, article published by Federal News Network, Veronica Nannis discusses what insiders should know if they suspect fraud against the federal government and are considering filing a whistleblower claim under the False Claims Act (FCA).

Under the FCA, private citizens, known as relators, can bring claims on behalf of the government to expose fraud and help recover federal funds. As Veronica explains, potential fraud can take many forms, including up-charging medical services or codes, performing unnecessary medical procedures, providing products or services that do not meet federal contract requirements, or concealing the country of origin or value of goods to avoid U.S. customs or tariffs.

In the article, Veronica discusses what potential whistleblowers should do when they suspect fraud, including acting promptly, properly preserving evidence and maintaining confidentiality. She addresses potential pitfalls as well, including the FCA’s first-to-file rule, which can bar a later whistleblower from recovering even when that person has stronger evidence of fraud.

Veronica also highlights the law’s protections against retaliation and emphasizes the importance of seeking trusted legal advice early in the process. “The most successful whistleblowers seek legal advice early, become educated and act strategically,” Veronica writes.

Read the article “Thinking of blowing the whistle? Actions to take, pitfalls to avoid” on the Federal News Network website.

Michal Shinnar represents a former AstraZeneca executive in a federal lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company alleging retaliation, sex discrimination and the failure to pay an earned bonus.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on August 4, 2026, the lawsuit alleges that the executive was retaliated against and ultimately terminated after raising concerns about a costly manufacturing project and reporting alleged mistreatment of women by a senior male scientist.

The plaintiff asserts claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which protects certain whistleblowers, the anti-retaliation provision of the Maryland False Claims Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Maryland Human Relations Act, the Montgomery County Human Rights Act, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The wage claim concerns a 2024 bonus she alleges she earned but was not fully paid.

The case was featured in Human Resources Director on August 6, 2026, in an article examining the allegations and the alleged role of AstraZeneca’s Human Resources team in the events leading to the executive’s termination.

Read the article “Fired executive says employer’s HR team helped retaliate after she raised concerns” on the Human Resources Director website.

What happens when one spouse puts their career on hold for the good of the family? In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, David Bulitt and family law attorney Christopher Castellano discuss how thoughtfully crafted prenuptial agreements can help protect a spouse who leaves the workforce, reduces their hours to care for children, or relocates to support a partner’s career.

David and Chris explore the often-overlooked financial impact of career sacrifices and explain how provisions addressing retirement contributions, alimony, life insurance, and career re-entry support can provide greater financial security, fairness, and peace of mind for both spouses.

In an article published in Law360 on July 17, 2026, Brian Markovitz discusses how recent venue rulings in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions are changing where cases are filed and increasing the administrative burden on courts.

The article examines how workers and their attorneys have reevaluated where to file FLSA collective actions following a Ninth Circuit decision last year in a case against Cracker Barrel addressing which plaintiffs may join FLSA collective actions based on where a case is filed. The decision has prompted attorneys to take a more strategic approach to selecting where to file these cases.

Brian explains that similar wage and hour claims are now being filed in multiple jurisdictions, requiring courts to determine where opt-in plaintiffs are located and creating additional work for the judicial system.

“That’s what the change has been, it’s just created probably more cases for the judicial branch and more work to check,” Brian said.

However, Brian noted that these procedural changes have not necessarily cut down on workers’ abilities to pursue claims of not being paid properly.

Read the article “Venue Is Key For FLSA Suits 1 Year After Cracker Barrel Case.” (PDF)

In a July 15, 2026, article published by HR Daily Advisor, Brian Markovitz and Kayla Schwein explain the minimum wage changes that took effect on July 1 in Maryland and Washington, DC, including new local wage rates.

Although Maryland’s statewide minimum wage remains at $15.00 per hour, employers in Montgomery and Howard counties must comply with higher local minimum wage requirements, while Washington, DC, has implemented its annual inflation-based increase. As Brian and Kayla note, the July 1 changes serve as an important reminder for employers to review payroll practices and ensure compliance with applicable wage laws.

The article highlights practical compliance steps, including verifying that payroll systems reflect the correct wage rates, updating required workplace posters, reviewing tipped employee compensation, and confirming the applicable minimum wage for employees who work remotely or across multiple jurisdictions.

Brian and Kayla also remind employees to verify that their pay reflects the correct minimum wage, raise any concerns with their employer, and contact the appropriate labor agency if the issue is not resolved.

“As labor costs continue to evolve across the region, both employers and employees should stay informed about annual wage adjustments and local requirements to ensure compliance and accurate compensation,” they wrote.

Read the full article, “Minimum Wage Increases Take Effect: What Employers Need to Know,” (PDF) for more details, including the new minimum wage rates.

When Maryland courts make custody decisions, the court’s primary consideration is the child’s best interests. Rather than relying on any one single factor, judges evaluate the child’s needs, each parent’s role in the family, each parent’s ability to meet those needs, and the overall circumstances affecting the child’s well-being.

If you are involved in a custody dispute, understanding how courts analyze the best interests standard can help you prepare for the process and make informed decisions about your case.

What Does “Best Interests of the Child” Mean in Maryland?

Maryland courts use the “best interests of the child standard” to determine legal custody, physical custody, and parenting arrangements. The goal is to create a custody arrangement that supports the child’s health, safety, emotional development, and stability.

Unlike some areas of law that follow strict formulas, custody decisions are highly fact-specific. Judges review the evidence presented and consider numerous factors before deciding what custody arrangement best serves the child’s needs.

What Factors Do Maryland Courts Consider in Custody Cases?

There is no single checklist that determines the outcome of every custody case. However, Maryland courts are required to determine the best interests of the child pursuant to sixteen (16) factors set forth in Md. Ann. Code, Family Law Article § 9-201.

Of those, courts commonly evaluate factors such as:

• The fitness and character of each parent
• The child’s relationship with each parent
• Each parent’s ability to communicate and cooperate regarding the care of the child
• The child’s emotional, educational, and developmental needs
• The stability of each parent’s home environment
• The geographic proximity of the parents’ homes
• The willingness of each parent to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent and the extended family
• Any history of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence

The weight given to each factor depends on the facts of the particular case.

Does the Child’s Preference Matter?

Maryland courts may consider a child’s preference when the child is mature enough to express a reasoned opinion, called “considered judgment.” A child may file his or her own petition for custody when they attain 16 years of age. Prior to age 16, there is no specific age at which a child may choose where he or she will live, although the court will evaluate the child’s maturity and judgment in considering the child’s preference. Courts will typically interview the child in chambers, away from the parents, so that the child is more at ease and does not feel responsible for choosing one parent over the other.

A judge is more likely to consider a well-reasoned preference based on factors such as school, family relationships, and daily routines versus a preference for one parent based on less strict rules in a household.

How Important Is Stability for the Child?

One of the most critical factors is the stability of the minor child.

Courts generally look for arrangements that provide consistency and stability in the child’s daily life, including school attendance, healthcare, extracurricular activities, and family relationships. Judges may examine how long the child has lived in a particular home/school and whether a proposed custody arrangement would disrupt established routines.

When evaluating competing custody proposals, the court may favor the option that minimizes unnecessary disruption while continuing to support the child’s overall development.

How Does a Parent’s Ability to Co-Parent Affect Custody?

Maryland courts recognize that children often benefit when parents can communicate effectively and make decisions together.

To determine the parties’ ability to communicate effectively, a judge may examine:

• Whether the parents can discuss important issues respectfully, either verbally or in text messages
• How conflicts have been handled in the past
• Whether either parent has interfered with the child’s relationship with the other parent
• The ability of both parents to follow court orders

Parents who demonstrate a willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent are often viewed more favorably by the court.

What Evidence Demonstrates the Child’s Best Interests?

Courts rely on evidence rather than just argument.

Useful evidence for the court includes school records, medical records, communications between parents, witness testimony, and documentation showing each parent’s involvement in the child’s life. Photographs of past participation can be critical in refuting allegations and establishing a clear history of participating in past events. Photographs also demonstrate the child’s responsiveness to the parent, which the court will never have an opportunity to observe directly. In some cases, custody evaluators or other professionals may provide recommendations to the court. The more clearly you can demonstrate your ability to care for and meet your child’s needs, the stronger your position may be during a custody proceeding.

Building a Strong Case for Your Child’s Future

Custody disputes can be emotionally challenging, but understanding the factors Maryland courts consider can help you approach the process in a reasoned manner. Because every family situation is different, presenting clear evidence and a child-focused parenting approach is often an important part of obtaining a favorable outcome.

If you are involved in a custody matter, working with a family law attorney can help you present the strongest evidence to the court and advocate for a custody arrangement that serves your child’s best interests.

In a July 8, 2026, article published by Law360, Veronica Nannis discusses the unique legal and professional challenges faced by in-house counsel who report corporate misconduct.

The article examines the rarity of successful whistleblower claims brought by in-house counsel, highlighting the significant legal, professional and ethical hurdles these attorneys often face. Veronica, who has represented whistleblowers for more than 24 years, notes that such cases are exceptionally uncommon. “I don’t think you could find even a handful of cases where there was an in-house attorney who was a successful whistleblower,” she told Law360.

The article also explores the recent disciplinary charges filed against former AT&T in-house attorney Theodore Marcus, who allegedly disclosed privileged company information related to a False Claims Act lawsuit. The case underscores the competing interests of protecting attorney-client privilege while encouraging the reporting of alleged corporate misconduct.

“There is a clear tension right now in the law, between wanting to protect privilege while at the same time wanting to encourage people and businesses to report corporate behavior that could lead to harm, death or fraud,” Veronica said. “Usually, it seems to come down on the side of protecting privilege.”

Read the full article, “Painful Reality – When In-House Counsel Blow The Whistle.” (PDF)

D.C. Council Moving Forward with Bill Authorizing Commercial Use of Autonomous Vehicles

On May 1, 2026, D.C. Councilmembers Charles Allen, Brooke Pinto, and Matthew Frumin introduced the “Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Act of 2026,” following the work of the Autonomous Vehicles Working Group established in 2018 by Mayor Muriel Bowser to study the technology.

In the letter to the City Council, Councilmember Charles Allens explains the purpose of the legislation:

• Establish a commercial autonomous vehicle program
• Create a phased timeline for deployment of commercial AVs
• Establish clear rules for engaging autonomous driving features (personal and commercial)
• Establish a vehicle miles traveled tax
• Improve public transit
• Support existing taxi and rideshare workers
• Clarify how existing traffic safety law and liability rules apply to autonomous vehicles

“As introduced, Bill 26-684 would establish a Commercial Autonomous Vehicles Program with the District Department of Transportation (“DDOT”) allowing for certain autonomous vehicles to transport passengers and goods in the District. It would require that applicants and recipients of a commercial AV permit submit planning documents, reports, and data to DDOT. It establishes penalties for noncompliance with program requirements as well as an appeals process. Among other things, it would create a vehicle miles traveled tax that applies to commercial AV operations, and also require that autonomous driving system manufacturers register their products with DDOT.”

Impact of Autonomous Vehicles Locally

On Tuesday night, June 23, 2026, I had the opportunity to attend the DC Forum on Autonomous Vehicles, organized by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA). Speakers from organizations around the community attended, including the Department of For-Hire Vehicles (DFHV), DC Families for Safe Streets, the DC Multi-Modal Accessibility Council, the Institute for Safer Trucking, and the DC Trial Lawyers Association (DC-TLA). All provided their initial views and concerns regarding the forthcoming driverless vehicles. Some of the topics of discussion were:

• Proper and thorough testing of vehicles
• Safety for pedestrians and cyclists
• Increase in traffic congestion
• Impact on for-hire workforce in DC
• Hazards obeying police, fire, and EMS in emergencies
• Equity of ridership across all eight wards
• Affordability
• Accessibility for those with disabilities
• Criminal liability
• Liability for damages and deaths
• Pickup and drop off in bike lanes
• Hacking and highjacking technology
• How and where the vehicles are being trained
• Maintenance alerts from vehicles
• Whether passengers can turn off the autonomous feature
• Software recalls
• Reliability during low visibility (i.e., dawn, dusk, rain or snow)
• Size of initial fleets
• Potential revenue for the city and where it goes

As a precursor to the May bill introduction, in April 2026, the D.C. Council bill unveiled a plan that would regulate robotaxis and charge companies a “vehicle miles traveled” fee. The proposal, as explained by Councilmember Allen, would generate a $0.15-per-mile tax for all autonomous vehicle miles traveled and the revenue would be split: 50% to public transit infrastructure and service and 50% to workforce transition programs for taxi and rideshare drivers affected by the deployment of commercial AVs.

All groups have their concerns. While everyone understands the reality that autonomous vehicles are already here, there is much public discussion that needs to take place prior to beginning the program.

To make your views heard, email your designated Ward representative via the Council Directory.

Views from the Chamber of Commerce

For years it seemed the District’s Department of Transportation was attempting to sabotage the rollout of autonomous vehicles. Driverless cars, including Waymo, are currently restricted from operating fully without drivers in DC. However, Waymo and Zoox are currently testing in DC with a driver at the wheel. Waymo has stepped up lobbying in DC to accelerate a national expansion and boasted of a safety record that would put human drivers to shame.

Ambitions for Autonomous Vehicles in DC

The DC Chamber of Commerce states the bill has two main ambitions. The first is equity. The bill requires every operator to submit an equity plan demonstrating reliability across all eight wards, not just the downtown corridors where ride demand is often the heaviest. Accessibility provisions require user interfaces that allow riders with disabilities to request and receive service. These provisions respond directly to the residents and advocates who have been telling the Council for years that DC’s transportation system does not work for everyone. The second is funding. The District of Columbia is currently in a budget deficit, and this bill, which establishes the “vehicle miles traveled tax,” is aimed at providing needed funding for public transportation and workforce transition programs.

Hindrances for Autonomous Vehicles in DC

The Chamber of Commerce sees these goals as reasonable and worthy. However, there are two provisions in the bill that work against the goals. These issues make it financially prohibitive for commercial AV services to serve the District.

The first is the fleet cap. The bill caps commercial AV fleets at 200 vehicles until January 2028, making the bill’s equity provisions structurally impossible to achieve. For a better perspective, look at the data. DC averages between 1,249 and 1,905 unique, active ride-hailing drivers on any given day, completing between roughly 95,000 and 147,000 daily ride-hailing trips. The existing rideshare workforce is six to ten times larger than the AV fleet the bill would permit.

A fleet of 200 vehicles is not nearly enough to provide reliable service across 68 square miles and eight wards. The bill wants equity, but splitting this evenly across all wards is 25 vehicles per ward. Current vehicle for hire service providers will tell you fleets are never perfectly distributed.

Providers have a clear incentive to concentrate vehicles downtown (Wards 1 and 2) where the utilization rate is highest. This would cluster the vehicles in one zone and would barely reach other wards. These provisions reach a plateau, which is exactly the opposite of what the bill’s equity provisions are trying to achieve.

When a for-hire service is initiated, service patterns are set, and riders become accustomed to these patterns and learn to expect the certainty. If a fleet is concentrated downtown for the first year, that fleet is much more likely to stay there due to rider expectations, operating economics, and long-term rollout decisions. This would undermine the idea of citywide access.

The proposed “vehicle miles traveled” fee also includes passenger-free “rebalancing” miles where vehicles must drive to other parts of the city. This has the benefit of limiting the amount of miles the vehicles are driving endlessly around the same city blocks – but this tax structure does damage to the bill’s goals of equity.

Rebalancing, or miles driven between pickup and drop off, is what makes geographic equity possible – for example, a drop off in Anacostia followed by a nine-mile drive to a pickup in Brookland. Under the bill’s provisions, the cost of rebalancing alone would be $1.35 in tax before any fare is collected.

On a grander scale, multiplying this cost by all the possible miles these vehicles could travel in one day gives service providers a strong incentive to provide service only to the city’s highest-demand corridors. It would simply be too expensive to operate in other wards as operating costs increase rapidly, ensuring the disincentive for longer trips in low-density neighborhoods. Service providers will inevitably need to increase the prices for rides, further limiting the number of residents who are able to use the service.

The Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Fund depends on widespread adoption and large-scale adoption to generate meaningful revenue for WMATA and workforce transition programs. But a fee structure that discourages ridership and limits fleet growth and expansion ultimately shrinks the very revenue base the bill is trying to create. The $0.15-per-mile vehicle miles traveled tax also sits on top of DC’s existing 6% TNC gross revenue tax. Together, those fees would make DC the most expensive AV market in the country before a single ride is offered.

Nationwide and Local Push for Autonomous Vehicles

One important note – driverless vehicles are here – but only in specific places. The U.S. is still in an expansion phase, not a universal rollout.

House Republicans have been pushing the DC mayor to begin legalizing commercial AVs, citing Waymo operations in 11 cities, and stating this is “no longer an emerging technology.”

Driverless cars, including Waymo, are currently restricted from operating fully without drivers in DC. However, Waymo and Zoox are currently testing in DC with a driver at the wheel.

Waymo has stepped up lobbying in DC to accelerate a national expansion. Its current national footprint covers over 1,400 square miles across 11 major U.S. metropolitan markets. Waymo, an Alphabet subsidiary, is looking to take over the marketplace and squeeze out other companies like Zoox, an Amazon subsidiary.

While no single company spans the entire country, several key players are scaling their autonomous networks:

• Waymo: The current market leader with over 250,000 paid rides per week across roughly a dozen major U.S. cities.

• Tesla: Working to roll out fully autonomous operations through its Full Self-Driving (FSD) Network and Cybercab initiatives.

• Zoox: Amazon’s subsidiary manufacturing a distinct, bidirectional vehicle with plans for public rollouts in cities like Las Vegas.

Waymo now serves over 20 million trips, operates a fleet of roughly 3,000 robotaxis, and is targeting one million trips per week by the end of 2026. In February, the company expanded internationally to London and Tokyo.

Further Thoughts

Residents of Washington, DC, you are among friends. Other cities in the United States and across the globe are all experiencing the excitement, fear, and uncertainty of fleets of driverless vehicles on our streets. Pedestrians and cyclists will increase purchases of safety equipment. Parents may not want their children walking to and from school. And senior citizens will find the city more challenging than ever. We cannot stop the new technology any more than we could stop the cell phone madness that swept across our land. What we can do is remain informed and aware.

Get the facts. Get educated.

In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, David Bulitt continues his conversation with family law attorney Christopher Castellano about the hidden costs of delaying divorce. This second part turns to some of the most personal and practical consequences of waiting too long to move forward, especially when children are involved.

David and Chris discuss how informal custody arrangements can quietly become the “status quo,” why temporary financial support decisions may later shape child support or alimony expectations, and how prolonged conflict can increase emotional strain for both parents and children. They also explore the strategic risks of delay, from stale evidence and harder-to-access financial records to resentment that can make settlement more difficult.

The conversation also looks at the other side of the issue: when delay may actually be useful, particularly for a financially disadvantaged spouse or when an informal arrangement is working in your favor. For anyone considering separation or divorce, this episode is a practical reminder that waiting is not always neutral, and that getting legal guidance early can help you understand the risks before temporary decisions become long-term consequences.