This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Case # Case Name 19-1143 State Farm Mutual


Insurance Company v. Terrence Brett Hill


Counsel for Appellant Area of Law


Judge Jurisdiction


Lawrence Ballantine 410-832-8012 Boone/ Assumption of Risk/Fireman’s Washington Rule/Workers Comp Set Off


County Issues


Plaintiff, a police officer injured while apprehending a sus- pect who intentionally struck the trooper’s vehicle with his own motor vehicle, recovered a judgment in the amount of $85,000 against plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier, which was reduced by the trial court by the $30,000 in workers compensation benefits paid. Did the trial court err in re- fusing to grant summary judgment on the issue of the Fireman’s Rule and/or assumption of risk, and was the court correct in reducing the amount of the judgment by the amount of worker’s compensation benefits previously paid?


20-2455 Gordon David Stouffer Donna Kolakowski-Hollen v. The Cadle Company Creditors/Debtors Rights


(successor to the Bank of Baltimore)


21-240


Karl Cessna v. Melissa Myers


John Zink 410-494-6200 Mitchell/ Lead Poisoning – Civil Procedure Baltimore City


22-1115 Charles Fischer, et al. v. Marvin Ellin 410-727-1787 Heller/Anne Steven Abert, M.D., et al. Medical Negligence/NOV


Arundel County Cannon/ Baltimore City


Did the circuit court commit reversible error when it sum- marily amended the misnomer of a debtor on a judgment without a hearing and by allowing a lien to be placed against property previously owned by debtor without an eviden- tiary hearing to determine whether the present owners, appellants, were subsequent bona fide purchasers?


In this alleged case of lead poisoning to a minor child, did the trial court err by refusing to permit appellants to intro- duce evidence of socioeconomic factors relevant to infant plaintiff ’s cognitive development?


Did the trial court err in granting defendant’s motion for judgment NOV on the issue of contributory negligence when the jury specifically found no contributory negligence and returned a $2 million verdict for plaintiffs and where the evidence showed that the defendant did not use a “dis- charge against medical advice” form when the patient returned home following his E.R. visit?


23-552 Daniel Carroll v. Dorothy Winslow


J. Stephen Simms 410-783-5795 Stepler/Frederick Attorney Liens/


County Attorney Sanctions


Plaintiff entered into a 25% contingency retainer on a claim against Allstate Life Insurance Company, which failed to pay life insurance benefits to her and her daughter’s estate because of the suicide exclusion. During litigation, plaintiff ’s attorney was discharged, but plaintiff continued pro se with the estate and estate’s counsel, ultimately recov- ering a verdict against Allstate of approximately $120,000 (with the estate recovering approximately $1.5 million). Did the trial court err in dismissing counsel’s attorney’s lien and imposing sanctions against him for filing an attorney’s lien in this case 2 + years after discharge when the verdicts were obtained?


24-560 United Services H. Patrick Stringer, Jr. Automobile Association v. 410-828-1335


Veronica Megonnell Motor Vehicle Liability and Umbrella Coverage


Kahl/Baltimore County


USAA issued an auto liability policy to plaintiff in the amount of $300,000 with a household exclusion reducing coverage to $20,000. USAA also issued an umbrella policy providing $3 million of additional coverage in excess of the plaintiff ’s $300,000 auto liability policy. Plaintiff obtained a $291,000 judgment against her husband for which USAA offered the $20,000 liability coverage provided for claims within the “household.” Did the trial court err in entering judgment against USAA for $291,000 against the umbrella policy, which was designed and intended to incorporate the same exclusions as existed in the underlying automo- bile policy?


25-254 Lewin Realty III, Inc. v.


Sean Brooks, Jr., a minor Lead Paint Poisoning/ Evidence


Frank F. Daily 410-584-9443 Gordy/Baltimore City


Did the trial court commit reversible error in: 1) permit- ting the jury to consider violation notices for unrelated properties; 2) granting a “failure to warn” instruction where there was no allegation of failure to warn in the complaint or answers to interrogatories; 3) permitting plaintiff’s vo- cational rehabilitation expert to give opinion testimony as to future loss of income; 4) refusing to transfer this case from Baltimore City on a change of venue request; and 5) failing to grant defendant’s motion for remittitur from $750,000.00 to $500,000.00, the amount of plaintiff’s ad damnum clause, but instead allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint post-verdict?


32


Trial Reporter


Spring 2001


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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56