In Allstate Ins. v. Miller, 315 Md. 182, 553 A.2d 1268 (1989), Mary Miller was a passenger in her employer's vehicle when she was struck by a vehicle operated by Gregory Sowell. Id. at 184. At the time of the accident, Miller's employer had uninsured/underinsured motor vehicle coverage provided by Allstate. Id. The uninsured/underinsured policy limits set forth in Ms. Miller's employers' policy was $50,000. Id. at 189. Ms. Miller filed a two-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The first count alleged that Sowell's negligence caused her to suffer injury. A second count named Allstate as a defendant and alleged that Allstate had breached its contract with her by failing to pay her what was due for uninsured motorist coverage. Id. at 184. A default judgment was entered against Sowell, which left two issues unresolved: 1) whether Sowell was uninsured; and 2) the amount of damages that plaintiff was entitled to recover. Id. In the words of the Miller Court: The second issue, of course, had two aspects: the damages to which Miller was entitled by reason of Sowell's negligence, and the amount owed Miller by Allstate by reason of the insurance contract. Id. In Miller, the trial judge instructed the jury that Sowell was an uninsured motorist as a matter of law. The court also granted Miller's motion on the issue of liability as to Allstate. What was before the jury was "the damages, if any, arising from the tort action of Miller v. Sowell . . . ." Id. at 185. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Miller in the amount of $120,000, which was $70,000 over Allstate's limits. Id. In a post-judgment motion, Allstate argued that a jury verdict against it exceeded its uninsured third-party policy limits and therefore should be reduced by the trial judge to the amount of the contractual coverage. Miller, on the other hand, contended that Allstate had the burden of establishing and proving the limits of its liability to the jury and that, because the insurer elected not to enter the policy limits into evidence at trial, it could not offer the evidence for the first time on a post-trial motion. In response, the Miller Court stated: Miller's argument might be persuasive had this case gone to the jury on the contract claim against Allstate. But, as we have seen, what actually went to the jury was the question of damages arising from the tort claim of Miller against Sowell. We are dealing with what was functionally presented to the jury as a tort case. Id. at 190.The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err by declaring a motorist uninsured as a matter of law when the injured passenger bringing suit produced "thorough documentation" that the motorist was uninsured and Allstate merely argued, without evidentiary support, that the defendant may have had a personal injury policy. Id. at 188. The jury returned a verdict against the driver and the insurance company for damages. Allstate challenged the trial court's ruling on appeal, arguing that the defendant "was not an uninsured motorist as a matter of law because the facts supporting this interpretation were not uncontroverted." Id. at 186. The Court stated that a jury is required to accept evidence that is uncontroverted and that "the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence becomes uncontroverted on the basis of the plaintiff's thorough documentation and the defendant's complete inaction." Id. at 188. The mere suggestion by Allstate that the motorist might have had a personal policy was insufficient to prevent the court from reaching this conclusion. Id. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Miller, Ms. Miller was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued her employer's insurer under the uninsured motorist provision of her employer's policy. Significantly, the trial court "directed the jury to only consider the issue of the plaintiff's damages," based on "the elements of damage that typically are involved in a tort case." Miller, 315 Md. at 184. The Miller Court noted that, from the jury's perspective, the case involved the issue of damages, if any, arising from the underlying tort action. 315 Md. at 185. When the jury returned a verdict in excess of the uninsured third party policy limits, Allstate argued that the verdict should be reduced to the amount of the policy limits. Miller disagreed, claiming Allstate failed to introduce the policy limits and therefore it could not do so after the verdict. The Court disagreed, stating: Miller's argument might be persuasive had this case gone to the jury on the contract claim against Allstate. But, as we have seen, what actually went to the jury was the question of damages arising from the tort claim of Miller against Sowell. We are dealing with what was functionally presented to the jury as a tort case. (Miller, 315 Md. at 190.) The Miller Court added: The amount of uninsured motorist coverage should not be disclosed unless the amount is in controversy. What the jury was directed to consider, and all the jury was directed to consider, was the issue of damages in a tort case. In this posture of the case, and under these circumstances, rather than require a party to establish uninsured motorist policy limits as an affirmative defense or as a limitation of exposure, the better rule is to allow the jury to make its decision on the issue of damages without being informed of the amount of coverage available. Therefore, the admission of uninsured motorist coverage amounts should not be a tactical decision left to the parties' discretion. The fact of the limit of uninsured motorist coverage is irrelevant to the issue of the amount of tort damages. (315 Md. at 191-92.)