Case # Case Name
Counsel for Appellant Area of Law
227-2057-02 Roland Brown, et ux. v Wendy L. Shiff, Shawn Lamont Douglas, et al.
228-2358-02 Pennsylvania National (410) 439-6633
Motor Vehicle Accident/ Instructions
Kevin Karpinski, Mutual Casualty Insurance (410) 727-5000
Company v Jeffrey Frazier, UM/UIM Coverage/ and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
229-2370-02 Harris & Folick, Inc. v Tyrone Jones, Infant
230-2495-02 CP Holdings, Inc. v Statute of Limitations
Thomas J. Cullen, Jr., Holland/ (410) 783-4000
Lead Paint Poisoning/ Evidentiary Rulings
Colgate Investments, LLP (410) 559-9000
Sidney S. Friedman, Marshall/Harford County
Motion for Summary Judgment/Adverse Ruling Without Hearing
231-2552-02 John Crane, Inc., et al. v Gerry H. Tostanoski, Frances Brockmeyer, et al. (410) 752-9700
Product Liability/ Asbestos Various Issues
Rombro/Baltimore City
Baltimore City
Caroom/Anne Arundel County
Judge Jurisdiction Martin/Prince George’s County Issues
Did the trial court err in giving the “unavoidable accident,” “mere happening of an accident,” and “reciprocal duties” instructions to the jury and by incorrectly instructing as to the Maryland Boulevard Rule?
Did the trial court err in ruling that the statute of limita- tions ran on the UIM carrier’s pursuit of subrogation when its settlement of the UIM claim and subrogation lawsuit
both occurred after three years from the date of accident?
Following the Plaintiff ’s verdict the Defendant appealed claiming the trial court erred in allowing the question of economic damages to be presented to the jury and in refus- ing to grant judgment for the Appellant because of Appellee’s failure to prove the presence of lead-based paint within the subject premises during the minor’s residency.
Did the trial court err in granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment without a hearing notwithstanding Appellant’s Request for Hearing on the Motion?
Following a $2.7 million verdict against Owens-Illinois, De- fendants appeal raising the following issues: 1) was Owens-Illinois entitled to judgment on its cross-claims against Hopeman and Uniroyal as a matter of law? 2) Did the trial court err in ruling on when Plaintiff ’s mesothelimona existed for purposes of applying the Mary- land damages cap, ignoring the rule against marrying into a loss of consortium claim, and ignoring the plain terms of the release given by the Plaintiffs to Owens-Illinois? 3) Did the trial court err in failing to apply a single cap to the personal injury and loss of consortium damage awards?
(Continued on page 32)
Fall 2003
Trial Reporter
31
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