Case #
Case Name
Counsel for Appellant Area of Law
Judgment
Judge Jurisdiction
381-00043-05 Erie Insurance Exchange Edward J. Brown Mason/ v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Declaratory Montgomery Insurance Fund
County Issues
In a case where Erie Insurance and MAIF are disputing ownership of the vehicle, and there- fore, coverage, did the Circuit Court err in finding that the issue of whether the vehicle was “acquired” by the MAIF insured would be re- solved in the tort suit? And, did the Circuit Court err in assuming that Erie Insurance would be able to intervene in the Tort suit under Allstate v. Atwood?
382-0013-05 Weston Builders and Melvin J. Sykes Developers, Inc. v.
Henderson/ (410) 727-3078
Nick McBerry, LLC Commercial Litigation/ Accord and Satisfaction
Charles County
Was the trial court correct in finding an accord and satisfaction as a matter of law where a con- tract was declared terminated by the seller? The buyer’s deposit and advances were returned to the buyer and accepted by the buyer, but the funds were placed in escrow with the buyer’s attorney, and suit was filed disputing the termi- nation. In this case, the seller also advised the buyer that seller expressed and reserved all of its rights and remedies under the contract.
383-2399 & Wilburn v. State of Matt Paavola 2489-04
(Consolidated) National Wide Mutual Insurance Company
Maryland, et al. and (410) 574-8000 Cox/Burns/
Levitz/Cavanaugh/ Baltimore County
Experienced.
Providing Services to the Legal Profession and Their Clients
Credible. Responsive.
• DAMAGES • BUSINESS VALUATIONS • FORENSIC ACCOUNTING • LAW FIRM MANAGEMENT
“Providing Quality Services In AChanging World Since 1946”
Ellin & Tucker Consultants Specialize in
Should the State of Maryland be precluded from denying its self-insured motor vehicle liability coverage to an accident caused by the negligence of a state employee driving a state-owned mo- tor vehicle simply because that employee may have strayed beyond the scope of his employ- ment? Further, the case asks whether Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company should be precluded from disclaiming coverage under a policy of Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance to an accident caused by the negligence of its named insured because its named insured was driving an motor vehicle owned by his employer, espe- cially when the employer has successfully denied coverage for the same accident. Finally, among other issues, the case asks whether the exclusion in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company’s Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Policy is void because it is contrary to Maryland Law and/or Maryland Public Policy.
(Continued on page 48)
Baltimore, MD 410-727-5735
www.etnet.com 46
Washington, D.C. 202-638-0902 Frederick, MD 301-696-1926
Trial Reporter Fall 2005
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