Case Name/Case # Star Hotels LLC v.
G & R Maple Lawn LLC 527-390
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Edward M. Buxbaum, Esq. Denise M. Sweeney 410-347-8700 Contract Law
Circuit Court for Howard County
Issues
This case involves a commercial land sale agreement which contemplated the development of a hotel in Howard County, Maryland. The defendant claims that specific performance was not available because an anticipated exhibit describing the meets and bounds of the parcel was not attached to the agreement and, accordingly, there was allegedly no meeting of the minds as to what specific parcel was intended to be sold. Although this was the primary defense, the Circuit Court found that the plaintiff had beached the agreement, violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and acted with unclean hands as a result of the failure to notify the defendant that the plaintiff had obtained franchi- sor approval to operate an Embassy Suites Hotel. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the agreement is silent as to any obligation to provide the defendant with notice of franchisor approval and that, as a result, the Circuit Court erred.
Catherine L. Riter Michael T. Edmonds, Esq. v. Acands, Inc. 528-670
410-244-7005 Asbestos Litigation Carole Smith
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
The question presented to the Court in this single-issue appeal is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the ap- pellants failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate exposure to the appellee’s asbestos-containing brakes. The appellants where employees of a steel mill during a period of time when the mill used asbestos-containing crane brakes. The appellants contend that their evidence showed that they were present and working in the vicinity of the brakes and that the brakes omitted asbestos-containing dust to which the appellants were exposed.
Neon Stern v. The Mutual Fire
Insurance Company of Carole County 529-264
John D. Burns, Esq. 301-441-8780
Insurance Coverage
E. Allen Shepherd Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
This case involves a claim for coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy following a theft. The policy excludes recovery for items stolen but permits recovery for items damaged or vandalized. The homeowners contention is that certain items were damaged to the point of being irretriev- ably lost before they were stolen or removed from the house by burglar(s). The homeowners contend that these items are covered insofar as they were damaged, irrespective of whether they were also stolen immediately thereafter. The question for the court is whether the property is covered by the policy.
Warren Cesar Miranda-Estacuy v.
Ivan M. Waldman, Esq. 301-439-3515
Ronald B. Rubin Circuit Court for
Progressive Northern Automobile Insurance Policy Montgomery Insurance Company 530-746
County
This case involves a coverage dispute related to a motor vehicle accident. The policy in question contained a fellow employee exclusion that purported to exclude all coverage and did not permit the statutory minimum bodily injury coverage. The question on appeal is whether a fellow em- ployee exclusion is permitted to exclude even the statutory minimum coverage.
62
Trial Reporter
Fall 2008
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76