I have practiced law for decades. A substantial part of that work has involved personal injury litigation and disputes in which an insurance company contests, defends, controls, or is directly responsible for payment of a claim.
Court and agency records provide independently reviewable ways to see some of that work.
Eric T. Kirk is a Baltimore attorney whose publicly available record includes Maryland state and federal personal-injury and insurance litigation, together with a published Maryland Insurance Administration decision identifying him as lead counsel in a bad faith insurance dispute.
The excerpted matters below are not and not intended to constitute a complete list of cases handled by Eric T. Kirk. Most are included to document independently reviewable litigation activity rather than case outcomes. A separately identified Maryland Insurance Administration decision finding and absence of good faith by the involved insurer is included because the published agency decision itself identifies Eric T. Kirk as counsel and states the agency’s findings. Past litigation and prior results do not predict or guarantee a result in any future matter.
The court matters can be identified by court and docket number and reviewed through Maryland Judiciary Case Search or PACER. Maryland administrative decisions and the historical reporting used to place it in context can be reviewed through public Maryland Insurance Administration records.
Publicly Verifiable Personal Injury, Insurance Litigation, and Administrative Insurance Records Involving Eric T. Kirk
Public-record evidence
Most entries document publicly identifiable litigation activity rather than outcomes.
One separately identified MIA decision includes the agency’s published findings.
Independent verification
Court matters identify a court and case number. The MIA matter identifies the agency
decision number and public reporting used for verification.
Excerpted litigation history
These are selected entries from a broader litigation history and are not presented
as a complete case list.
Personal Injury Litigation in Maryland
Personal injury litigation can involve disputes with an insurance carrier over responsibility, causation, medical evidence, damages, credibility, contributory negligence, insurance coverage, and claim value. The matters below are examples of publicly identifiable Maryland cases in which I appeared as plaintiff’s counsel.
Automobile and Motor-Vehicle Litigation
Kenneth Randazzo v. Timothy Reid
Craig Wallace v. Hugo Aguilar
Michail Roumeliotis v. Vasyl Yuriv, et al.
Bradie Frink, Jr. v. David Proctor, et al.
Bianca Rodriguez v. Gary Knopsnyder, II, et al.
Kelsie Reiser v. Ruth Shutty
Patrice Sykes v. Jamar Lavon Braxton, et al.
Negligence, Premises Liability and Other Injury Litigation
Linda Adams v. Margaret Croson, et al.
Francis Barrett v. Barrett Distribution Centers Inc., et al.
Michelle Williams v. G6 Hospitality Property, LLC, et al.
Matt Berres v. Robert Allen
Jacobs v. Chick Fil A Inc., et al.
Linda Tang v. Luke Patterson
Published Maryland Insurance Administration Decision: Insurance Company Failed to Act in Good Faith
I represented the insured in a first-party underinsured motorist injury claim against an insurance company that resulted in a published Maryland Insurance Administration decision. The decision identifies Attorney Eric T. Kirk in the claim correspondence and concludes that the Insurance Company breached its obligation under the policy and failed to act in good faith.
L.H. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
This administrative decision provides a different kind of public evidence from a court docket. The published decision documents both my role as counsel and the Maryland Insurance Administration’s determination concerning the Insurance Company’s handling and valuation of this particular UIM injury claim.
How Often Does the Maryland Insurance Administration Make This Finding?
Maryland Insurance Administration annual reports for fiscal years 2008 through 2025 record 28 findings involving an insurer’s absence or failure to act in good faith under § 27-1001 over that 18-fiscal-year period. That is an average of approximately 1.6 findings per fiscal year.
In fiscal year 2021, the reporting period that includes this decision, the MIA reported three findings that an insurer breached its obligation to act in good faith among 40 matters decided on the merits.
Public sources: Maryland Insurance Administration Orders and Exams Search | MIA FY 2021 Absence of Good Faith Report | MIA Historical Reports Archive
These historical figures describe Maryland Insurance Administration administrative findings during the stated period. They do not compare lawyers or indicate that another insurance dispute will produce the same result. Every insurance claim depends on its own facts, evidence, policy provisions, applicable law, and procedural history. A prior result does not guarantee or predict the outcome of another matter.
Litigation Directly Involving Insurance Companies
In many injury cases, insurance operates behind the underlying tort dispute, but controls the defenses, denials, and ultimately, the purse strings. In other matters, the insurance company itself becomes a named party. Those cases provide a particularly direct public record of insurance litigation.
Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Litigation
Susanna Suszczyk v. GEICO General Insurance Co.
John Coles v. GEICO Insurance
Craig Wallace v. Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina
Cynthia Miller v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Homeowners and Property Insurance Litigation
Valandria Henderson v. Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest
Linda Adams v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Federal Litigation in the District of Maryland
My litigation record also includes matters in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Federal cases can involve personal injury, insurance coverage, negligence, diversity jurisdiction, removed state-law claims, maritime issues, and other civil disputes directly with the insurance company.
Adams v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Kobesky, et al. v. Travelers Personal Insurance Company
Mehta, et al. v. Mutual Benefit Insurance Company
Barry C. Trucking Inc., et al. v. Great West Casualty Company
Deirish v. Northwest Hospital Center Inc., et al.
Baylor v. Beacon Pointe Apartments, LLC
Rodriguez v. Knopsnyder, II
What the Public Litigation Repository Establishes
A court docket does not tell the entire story of a case. It does not necessarily reveal every factual dispute, insurance issue, negotiation, evidentiary problem, strategic decision, or result.
But a docket can establish something much more basic: the litigation occurred.
The public litigation repository documents involvement in personal injury litigation, automobile cases, premises-liability disputes, UM/UIM claims, homeowners-insurance disputes, direct litigation involving insurance companies, and federal civil litigation.
The separately identified Maryland Insurance Administration decision provides a different level of public documentation: the agency decision identifies me as counsel and states its findings that the Insurance Company breached its policy obligation and failed to act in good faith in that particular first-party UIM injury claim.
Personal Injury Claims and Insurance Resistance
Many personal injury cases contain two related disputes. The first concerns the underlying injury claim: what happened, who was responsible, what injuries were caused, and what damages resulted.
The second concerns insurance: whether the insurance company accepts those facts, whether it contests responsibility or causation, and what it is willing to pay based on the evidence.
I analyze that progression as:
Crash or Incident → Injury → Medical Evidence → Insurance Resistance → Evidence → Negotiation or Litigation → Resolution
When an insurance position cannot be resolved through the claims process, litigation can move the dispute into a judicial process in which evidence can be developed, defenses tested, witnesses questioned, experts used where appropriate, and legal issues presented to a court.
Independent Verification
Maryland state-court matters identified on this page may be searched through Maryland Judiciary Case Search using the docket numbers provided. Federal matters may be reviewed through PACER, the federal judiciary’s electronic public-access system. The separately identified Insurance Company administrative matter may be located through the Maryland Insurance Administration Orders and Exams Search using Decision No. 27-1001-20-00014, and the historical context figures are drawn from the MIA’s published annual reports.
Most matters in this repository are included to document litigation activity rather than outcomes. Unless expressly stated otherwise, inclusion should not be interpreted as a statement about the outcome of the case, the amount of any recovery, whether a matter proceeded to trial, or whether any result was more or less favorable than another. The separately identified MIA matter is an express exception because the published administrative decision itself states the agency’s findings.
Frequently Asked Questions About This Litigation Reference
Does this page list every case Eric T. Kirk has handled?
No. The matters on this page are excerpts from a broader litigation history. They are not intended to be a complete list.
Are these cases being presented as case results?
Generally, no. Most entries are included to document publicly reviewable litigation activity rather than outcomes. A separately identified Maryland Insurance Administration matter includes the agency’s published findings because the underlying public decision states both my role as counsel and the administrative disposition. Every matter depends on its own facts and law, and a prior result does not predict or guarantee another result.
What did the Maryland Insurance Administration find in the Insurance Company matter?
In Decision No. 27-1001-20-00014, the Maryland Insurance Administration concluded that the Insurance Company breached its obligation under the policy and failed to act in good faith in the handling and valuation of the insured’s underinsured motorist injury claim. The published decision identifies Eric T. Kirk as the insured’s attorney.
Why are docket numbers included?
Docket numbers allow a reader to identify the underlying court record independently through Maryland Judiciary Case Search or PACER.
Does inclusion on this page mean a case went to trial?
No. A public docket may document litigation without establishing that the matter proceeded to trial.
Do prior cases predict what will happen in another case?
No. Every case depends upon its own facts, evidence, applicable law, available insurance, defenses, procedural history, and other circumstances.
Why include both personal injury and insurance disputes?
Insurance issues frequently arise within personal injury litigation, while other disputes involve the insurance company directly as a party. The public record reflects both forms of litigation.
When an Insurance Position Becomes a Litigation Dispute
An insurance company’s position is not necessarily the final word on responsibility, causation, coverage, or value. When there is a good-faith legal and factual basis to proceed, litigation provides a process through which those disputed questions can be tested.
If an insurance company is disputing responsibility, causation, coverage, treatment, or the value of a serious injury claim, I can evaluate the evidence, the insurer’s position, and whether litigation is an appropriate path forward.
Learn About Injury Insurance Disputes- Baltimore Personal Injury Trial Lawyer
- Legal Analysis & Case Studies
- Baltimore Insurance Claims Denial Lawyer
For over three decades, I have battled against the nation’s largest insurance companies, always endeavoring to ensure my clients receive the compensation they deserve. As lead counsel in thousands of cases across Maryland, New York, and Florida, I have recovered millions for clients whose claims were wrongfully denied and delayed. Whether denying fair compensation for a personal injury victim or denying benefits to a homeowner, Insurance companies employ policy exclusions, technicalities, and lowball offers to deny and defeat claims. They also hire very good lawyers to fight you in court. So should you. When an insurance company unfairly rejects a claim, I stop them.
