Preview:

HEADNOTE MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY v. PHILLIP HANSON ET AL., NO. 819, SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005 INTERPRETATION OF THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY PROVISION IN INSURANCE POLICY; UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. RILEY, ___ MD. ___, NO. 40, SEPTEMBER TERM 2005 (FILED JUNE 1, 2006); CIRCUIT COURT'S DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ORDER PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT: (1) CONTINUING EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT AT THE SAME PROPERTY OVER MULTIPLE POLICY YEARS CONSTITUTED MULTIPLE OCCURRENCES DESPITE LANGUAGE THAT "[A]LL BODILY INJURY . . . RESULTING FROM . . . CONTINUOUS OR REPEATED EXPOSURE TO SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME GENERAL CONDITIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE RESULT OF ONE OCCURRENCE"; (2) THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY LANGUAGE IN THE POLICY PROVISIONS WAS INEFFECTIVE TO PRECLUDE "STACKING" OF OCCURRENCE LIMITS IN POLICIES COVERING SUCCESSIVE YEARS AND TRIGGERED BY A "CONTINUING INJURY"; AND (3) COVERAGE FOR LATER YEARS WAS TRIGGERED BY INJURIES THAT HAD ALREADY MANIFESTED AND BEEN DIAGNOSED PRIOR TO THE INCEPTION OF SUCH COVERAGE.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 819 September Term, 2005

MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY

v. PHILLIP HANSON ET AL.

Davis, Krauser, Barbera,

JJ.

Opinion by Davis, J.

Filed: July 3, 2006

Maryland Casualty Company, appellant, files this appeal from a Declaratory Judgment Order issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Matricianni, J., presiding). The court found that

appellant was liable for insurance coverage under six separate policies for injuries that children of a tenant suffered as a result of lead

Download Maryland Casualty v. Hanson.pdf

Maryland Law