Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, which operated an animal crematory, filed an action against Respondent, a planning and engineering firm, alleging breach of contract and professional negligence. The complaint failed to attribute Respondent's alleged failings to a licensed engineer and was not accompanied by a certificate of a qualified expert. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to file a certificate within the required time period. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that where the allegations of Petitioner's complaint did not fault a licensed engineer, it was premature to conclude that an expert certificate was required, as the certificate requirement applies only to a cause of action based on a licensed engineer's negligent act or omission in rendering engineering services within the scope of the engineer's license. View "Heavenly Days Crematorium, LLC v. Harris, Smariga & Assocs." on Justia Law

Dorothy Urban's estate (Estate) filed suit against Robert Street, asking the circuit court to declare null and void a deed executed by Urban to Street for a residential property on the grounds that the execution of the deed was procured through fraud. Street subsequently executed a deed of trust for a loan that was secured by the property. The majority of the loan was used to pay off a mortgage on the property placed by Urban. Later, the circuit court directed that the property be conveyed in Street's name to the Estate. The court created a constructive trust on the property without expressly declaring the Urban-to-Street deed void ab initio. Street subsequently defaulted on the deed of trust and Petitioners filed a foreclosure action on the property. The Estate filed a motion to dismiss the foreclosure proceedings, which the circuit court denied. The court of special appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although Petitioners were not bona fide purchasers of the property, under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, Petitioners were entitled to priority for the amount loaned to Street used to pay off the balance owed on the preexisting Urban mortgage. View "Fishman v. Murphy" on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a contract to sell a shopping center. The contract was amended on several occasions. In one provision, the buyer agreed to indemnify the seller for a real estate commission, which they both disclaimed in the contract itself, that might ultimately be owed to a particular real estate broker. Another provision provided for forfeiture of the buyer's deposit if the transaction did not close on the timetable in the contract. The transaction ultimately closed after the appointed date, and the real estate broker successfully sued the seller for a commission. The buyer went bankrupt, and the seller and the assignee investors were left to sort of the consequences of the course of events. The Court of Appeals held (1) the seller here was not entitled to indemnification from the assignee investors for its liability for the broker's commission, even though the buyer (their assignor) was obligated to indemnify the seller; (2) the seller was not entitled to forfeit the deposit funded by the investors; and (3) the seller was entitled to have the investors' claim for refund of the deposit offset by the amount of indemnification that the buyer owed the seller. View "Pines Plaza Ltd. P'ship v. Berkley Trace, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a passenger in a motor vehicle accident in which her husband, the driver, was killed and Petitioner suffered serious injuries. At the time of the accident, Petitioner and her husband had a motor vehicle liability insurance policy with State Farm Auto and an umbrella policy with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (collectively, State Farm). State Farm denied Petitioner's claim under the umbrella policy pursuant to a household exclusion, which excluded coverage in certain instances for injury the insured's family members. Petitioner contended that the household exclusion in the umbrella policy was void in light of Md. Code Ann. Ins. 19-504.1, which requires an insurer to offer liability coverage for family members in the same amount of liability coverage for nonfamily members under a policy of "private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance." The circuit court ruled in favor of State Farm. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the umbrella policy did not fit within the definition of "private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance" as contained in section 19-504.1, such that State Farm was not required to offer Petitioner and her husband liability coverage for family members in the same amount as the liability coverage for nonfamily members. View "Stickley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. " on Justia Law

When a property or casualty insurer becomes insolvent, the Maryland Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation (PCIGC) assumes responsibility for any outstanding claims or litigation. In this case, an insurance company settled a claim with an insured party but became insolvent before the agreement could be approved by a court. Respondents filed a complaint against PCIGC seeking declaratory relief, asking the circuit court to find they settled the claim and that PCIGC was obligated to pay the statutory maximum on both an underlying insurance policy and an umbrella policy. PCIGC sought to challenge the settlement reached by the parties and argued that it should not have to pay its statutory maximum on the policies when the claims stemmed from a single incident. The court of special appeals held (1) PCIGC may challenge a settlement only on limited grounds, such as fraud or collusion, and the corporation bears the burden of proving its reason for challenging a claim, and (2) PCIGC was liable for the statutory maximum on both policies. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) PCIGC had no sufficient grounds for properly challenging the settlement; and (2) requiring PCIGC to pay covered claims under separate policies was within its statutory mandate. View "Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp. v. Beebe-Lee" on Justia Law

Gladys Garner and Randolph Scott defaulted on their respective automobile loan agreements. Both contracts were governed by the provisions of the Creditor Grantor Closed End Credit Act of the Commercial Law Article (CLEC). The contracts were later assigned to Ally Financial, Inc., Nuvell National Auto Finance, and Nuvell Financial Services (collectively, GMAC). GMAC repossessed both vehicles and informed the debtors that the vehicles would be sold at a "public auction." Both cars were later sold. The debtors filed separate complaints against GMAC alleging, in part, that GMAC violated the CLEC because the sales of their cars were in reality "private sales," requiring GMAC to provide a detailed post-sale disclosure to them under the CLEC, which GMAC had not done. The federal district court combined the cases and granted summary judgment for GMAC, concluding the sales were "public auctions" because they were both widely advertised and open to the public for competitive bidding. The federal appellate court then certified an issue for clarification to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Court answered that the auctions were in reality "private sales" because attendance was limited to those who paid a refundable $1,000 cash deposit. View "Gardner v. Ally Fin., Inc." on Justia Law

Insured was injured in an accident. Insured's policy with Insurer included uninsured motorist (UM) bodily injury coverage and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. Insured's Employer's third-party workers' compensation (WC) administrator asserted a subrogation right against any PIP or UM recovery by Insured. At issue in this case was the correct interpretation of Md. Code Ins. 19-513. The district court asked the Court of Appeals to determine whether section 19-513(e) requires an insurance company to deduct WC benefits payable to an insured for UM and PIP when the insured has not reimbursed its provider and the insured intends to reimburse the WC provider in the future. The Court of Appeals held (1) under the plain meaning of section 19-513(e), an insured's benefits payable under UM and PIP coverage shall be reduced to the extent that the insured recovered benefits under WC and the WC provider has not been reimbursed; and (2) if the applicable workers' compensation law treats "write-downs" of medical bills as WC benefits, and the WC benefits have not been reimbursed, then the insurer shall deduct those benefits, calculated as discounts, from its benefits payable to the insured under section 19-513(e). View "Travco Ins. Co. v. Williams" on Justia Law

These petitions for certiorari pertained to contribution among joint tort-feasors and arose from a medical malpractice action in which Petitioners, the Spences, alleged wrongful death and survival claims against Petitioner Mercy Medical Center and Respondents, a medical doctor and his practices. The issue of contribution arose because the Spences and Mercy entered into a pre-trial settlement by which the Spences agreed to dismiss their claims against Mercy without exacting an admission of liability. After Mercy was dismissed as a party, the case proceeded to trial against Respondents, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the Spences. Respondents subsequently initiated a separate action against Mercy seeking contribution. The Spences contemporaneously brought suit against Respondents seeking a declaration that Respondents were not entitled to contribution. At issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the Spences' release extinguished any right Respondents had to seek contribution against Mercy because Respondents did not join Mercy as a third party defendant in the original action after it was dismissed as a party. The Court of Appeals held that Respondents were not prohibited from pursuing contribution from Mercy in a separate action because the release's conditional language did not fully relieve Mercy's contribution liability. View "Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Julian" on Justia Law

The owners of two properties leased them to developer-tenants for the purpose of building an apartment building on each. As construction was beginning, the landlords breached the leases by refusing to provide estoppel certificates and contesting the tenants' building permits. The landlords' breach prevented the tenants from obtaining financing, which ended the development project. The tenants sued for lost profits. Before trial, the circuit court ruled against the landlords on several motions, holding in part (1) the landlords could not introduce evidence of the 2008 crash in the real estate market to show that the tenants would not have made profits, and (2) the tenants could introduce evidence of the landlords' reasons for breaching, including communications with their former counsel. The jury awarded the tenants over $36 million in damages, holding the landlords jointly and severally liable. The court of special appeals held the landlords could not be held jointly and severally liable but otherwise affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did nor err in excluding all evidence of post-breach market data in measuring damages; and (2) the landlord waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications relevant to the subject matter of the claim of bad faith. View "CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC" on Justia Law

A collective-bargaining agreement between Baltimore County and Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 4 (FOP) contained an arbitration clause and a retiree health-insurance provision. FOP believed the provision locked in place the health-insurance subsidy as it existed at the time of an officer's retirement. After the agreement expired and the County decreased the health-insurance subsidy, FOP initiated arbitration. The County protested, arguing (1) it had no duty to arbitrate because the collective-bargaining agreement had expired, and (2) the health-insurance subsidy was not locked in place but was subject to change from year to year. FOP was successful in arbitration and on appeal before the circuit court, but the court of special appeals vacated the arbitration award. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) an arbitration clause may survive the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement when it concerns rights that vested during the life of the agreement; and (2) when deciding the issue of arbitrability requires interpretation of the underlying agreement and consideration of the merits of the dispute, the issue of arbitrability should initially be determined by the arbitrator. View "Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police Lodge v. Baltimore County" on Justia Law