596-02394 Wilbert C. Cannon v. Diana Rosenberg
Edwin G. Carson, Esquire 410-879-2222 Real Property/Foreclosure
Te Honorable William O. Carr Court not listed
597-01157 Trio Inc. v. Matt Boudreau Agency
Darren Margolis, Esquire 410-539-5855 Professional Negligence/Insurance Broker
Te Honorable Patrick Cavanaugh Baltimore County
598-01533 Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Marshall Hubbard
Carol B. O’Keeffe, Esquire 202-962-1496 Personal Injury/Negligence
Te Honorable Ronald D. Schiff Prince George’s County
599-02259 Government Employees Insurance Company v. Ray E. Comer, Jr.
Richard E. Schimel, Esquire 301-654-0896 Motor Vehicle Accident
Te Honorable Paul Garvey Goetzke Anne Arundel County
Te plaintiff won a motion for judgment against defendant WMATA at the close of evidence. Te court further held that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Te jury was left to consider damages only. Te case involves injuries sustained while the plaintiff was driving a car which was involved in an accident with a Metro bus which turned left in front of the car at a stop sign. Tis case is an excellent example of the rare grant of a motion for judgment at the close of the case in favor of the plaintiff and an attack on it by way of appeal.
An insured is attempting to recover uninsured benefits from his insurance company in connection with injuries sustained while riding a motorcycle which was neither named in the declarations of the policy nor covered by the liability coverage of the policy. Te court below ruled that the policy provided coverage, that no exclusion applied and that benefits were due and owing because the plaintiff was an insured whether or not the vehicle was listed in the policy.
Tis case addresses the standard of care required of an insurance broker alleged to have procured insufficient coverage for the insured. Two secondary issues are whether the court abused its discretion in: 1) refusing to allow the owner of a jewelry business to testify as to the value of stolen jewelry; and 2) refusing to enter photographs of the jewelry store’s interior which depicted the type of merchandise sold.
Tis case addresses the minimum time for advertising a foreclosure sale and the consequences for failure to advertise for this minimum time. Te plaintiff challenges the foreclosure sale of a home which the plaintiff alleges was not advertised for the necessary period of time. Te case presents the court with an excellent opportunity to provide a detailed analysis of the proper method for calculating the relevant period of time.
Trial Reporter / Summer 2009 57
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 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68