Appellate Decisions (Continued from page 42)
Collette Herrington, et. Al. v. Red Run Cor- poration, d/b/a Food Depot, No. 2435, September Term, 2001, decided December 3, 2002. Opinion by Davis, J.
Family Law
Court of Appeals FAMILY LAW – CHILD CUSTODY – STANDARD OF PROOF TO REBUT THE PRESUMTION FAVORING THE PARENT IN A CUSTODY AC- TION BETWEEN THE PARENT AND A THIRD PARTY IS PREPON- DERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
Shurupoff v. Vockroth, No. 31, September Term, 2002, filed January 7, 2003. Opin- ion by Wilner, J.
Insurance
Court of Special Appeals INSURANCE – MARYLAND AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE FUND – INTENTIONAL MISREPRENTA- TION BY APPLICANT IN POLICY APPLICATION – VOID AB INITIO
Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, et al., No. 2149, September Term 2001, filed December 24, 2002. Opinion by Adkins, J.
Torts Court of Appeals
TORTS – LOCAL GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIMS ACT – NOTICE RE- QUIREMENTS – NOTICE TO A THIRD PARTY CLAIMS ADMINIS- TRATOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSTI- TUTES SUBSTANTIAL COM- PLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE RE- QUIREMENTS SET OUT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIMS ACT.
Facts: In both of these cases, the peti- tioners, Robert Moore (“Moore”) and Stuart Mendelson (Mendelson”) were in- jured in an accident, resulting from the negligence of an employee of Montgom-
44
ery County. In both, Trigon Administra- tors, Inc. (“Trigon”) provided claims administration services for the Montgom- ery County Self-Insurance Program. In neither did the petitioners send any no- tice to the County Executive and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the County Executive was provided with any written notification from any other source. In separate trials, both cases were dismissed pursuant to Maryland Rule 2- 322(b) in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and both petition- ers noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals and the Court of Appeals granted certiorari on its own motion while the cases were pending in the intermediate appellate court.
Held: Reversed. Where the tort claimant provides notice to the local government, through the unit or division with the re- sponsibility for investigating tort claims against that local government, or the com- pany with whom the local government or unit has contracted for that function, the notice requirement of the Local Govern- ment Tort Claims Act (LGTCA), Md. Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol., 2000 Cum. Supp.) Section 5-304(b) (3) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article has been met and the tort claimant has substan- tially complied with the notice provisions of the LGTCA. The LGTCA provides a remedy for those injured by local government offic- ers and employees acting without malice and in the scope of employment, while ensuring that the financial burden of com- pensation is carried by the local government ultimately responsible for the public’s actions. The LGTCA generally requires that plaintiffs give local govern- ment defendants notice of claims within 180 days of the injury and that such no- tice be given to designated officials. The purpose of the notice requirement is to protect the municipalities and counties of the State from meretricious claimants and exaggerated claims by providing a mecha- nism whereby the municipality or county would be apprised of its possible liability at the time when it could conduct its own investigation and ascertain, for itself, from evidence and recollection that are fresh and undiminished by time, the character and extent of the injury and its responsi- bility for it. In light of this purpose, this Court has recognized that substantial compliance with the statutory require- ments may nevertheless satisfy the statue where the purpose of the notice require- ment is fulfilled. The purpose was fulfilled in both of these cases by providing notice to Trigon and cooperating with it as it
Trial Reporter
investigated the circumstances of each case on behalf, and in the interest, of the County. Although the County uses a third party, private company to act as its claim administrator, it is clear, given this con- tractual arrangement, its comprehensive and the degree of control that the County maintains, that actual notice to the County results when notice is given to Trigon.
Moore V. Norouzi, et al.; Mendelson et ux. v. Brown et al., Nos. 126 & 127, Septem- ber Term 2000, filed September 25, 2002. Opinion by Bell, C.J.
______ Court of Special Appeals
TORTS – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – LATENT DIEASE – WHEN INHURY WAS NOT DISCOVERED NOR COULD HAVE BEEN REA- SONABLY DISCOVERABLE AT TIME OF THE MARRIAGE WIFE MAY RECOVER FOR LOSS OF CON- SORTIUM EVEN THOUGH INJURY TO HER HUSBAND OCCURRED BEFORE THE MARRIAGE; COM- MON LAW RULE PROHIBITING LOSS OF COSORTIUM RECOVERY FOR INHURIES THAT OCCUR BEFORE MARRIAGE IS INAPPLI- CABLE FOR LATENT DISEASES; COMMON LAW JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PRECVENTIONG RECOVERY NOT APPLICABLE IN LATENT DIS- EASE CONTEXT.
Facts: Five asbestos-related personal injury claims were tried jointly in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The plaintiffs included John Gianotti and the widows and personal representatives of the other four plaintiffs. The actions were brought against numerous asbestos manufactures, including defendant Owens-Illinois. Dur- ing the trial, Mr. Gianotti claimed damages for the development of mesothe- lioma, which had resulted from his exposure to asbestos manufactured by Owens-Illinois and others. In addition, Mr. and Ms. Gianotti jointly claimed damages for loss of consortium due to the disease. Mr. Gianotti was last exposed to as- bestos fibers in 1974 and first began experiencing symptoms associated with mesothelioma almost thirteen years after his 1986 marriage to Ms. Gianotti. At trial, it was undisputed that at the time
(Continued on page 46) Spring 2003
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64