Case # Case Name 1994
Counsel for Appellant Area of Law
Crystal Williams v.
1997 Tina Hill v. Ricardo Scartascini, M.D.
BGM Baltimore Associates Sanctions/Counsel Fee
Judge Jurisdiction
Saul Cooperman 410-547-0202 Rombro/Baltimore City
Charles R. Clakston 202-833-4170 Smith/Prince Joint Tort Feasor Law
George’s County Issues
Did the trial court err in ruling that plaintiff’s claim against the defendant had been brought in bad faith and without substantial justification and further granting a judgment of $9,000 against plaintiff’s counsel?
Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with Dimensions Health Cor- poration for $100,000 in return for a joint tort feasor’s release. Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $72,056. Did the trial court err in reducing the verdict to $0 and entering judgment in favor of the defendant.
2030
Charlene Walker-Horton v. Michael Eisenstein 410-539-4446 Cannon/Baltimore General Motors Truck & Workers Compensation Bus Group
City 2079
Erin Jones Wolfe v. Anne William F. Gately 410-821-9898 Lerner/Anne Arundel County Maryland
Insurance coverage for police misconduct
On a de novo appeal of a workers compensation case, did the trial court err in granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the claimant did not sus- tain any permanent partial disability based on Plaintiff ’s confusing deposition testimony, notwithstanding a medi- cal report to the contrary?
Arundel County
Plaintiff obtained a $1,000,000 judgment against an Anne Arundel County police officer for forcible rape subsequent to a traffic stop while the officer was on duty.
Plaintiff ’s
claim against Anne Arundel County for damages was dis- missed by the trial court. In granting summary judgment, did the trial court err by relying on insurance policy lan- guage which required that such conduct occur “within the scope of employment” when the county’s insurance agree- ment with the police department did not limit the availability of liability coverage? Did the court err in ruling as a matter of law that the county’s failure to settle did not constitute bad faith and that the county was not equitably estopped from denying coverage and from asserting policy defenses?
(Continued on page 12)
Summer 2000
Trial Reporter
37
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52