|
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: In Montgomery Ward v.
Wilson, 339 Md. 701, the Court of Appeals of Maryland (1)
held that in false imprisonment actions, punitive damages are recoverable only
on the basis of actual malice, (2) reiterated that in connection with both
intentional and non-intentional torts, an award of punitive damages generally
must be based upon actual malice, in the sense of conscious and deliberate
wrongdoing, evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, ill will or fraud, (3)
again held that clear and convincing evidence must support an award of punitive
damages (4) stated that in a malicious prosecution case, lack of probable cause
for prosecuting a plaintiff does not necessarily indicate a wrongful motive,
and (5) further held that for punitive damages to be awarded in malicious
prosecution actions, a Plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing
evidence the defendant’s wrongful or improper motive for instituting the
prosecution.
Montgomery Ward v. Wilson stands for the proposition that
actual malice for punitive damages is not inherent in the elements of the tort
of fraud. The court further indicated that a jury instruction that punitive
damages should not be disproportionate to either the wrongfulness of the
defendant’s conduct or the defendant’s ability
to pay should be given in cases involving punitive damages.
INSURANCE: In the case of Aetna v.
Cochran, 337 Md. 98, a case of which I reported
approximately one year ago, the court held that an insured [not the insurer]
could establish the potentiality of insurance coverage by extrinsic evidence
beyond the tort claim allegations. The court ruled that an insured may refer to
evidence beyond the tort complaint to establish the potentiality of coverage,
and that a duty to defend arises if the
insured demonstrates that there is reasonable potential that an issue
triggering coverage will be generated at the trial of the tort claim.
In Chantel Associates v. Mount Vernon, 338 Md. 131, the
Court of Appeals determined that the insured’s duty to indemnify could be
determined in a declaratory judgment action prior to filed judgment in the
underlying lead paint case, and that the insurer’s indemnification duty
reached to the limits of its liability policy.
|
TORT LAW, DUTY TO DEFEND:In Carroll Lane v.
Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, CSA No. 146, Sept. Term, 1995, Dec.
1, 1995, the court held that if an employer notifies an independent
contractor of latent dangers in the workplace, it has fulfilled its duty to
warn the independent contractor’s employees.
TORT LAW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: In the
Francis R. Hayes v. You S. Wang, CSA No. 669, Sept.
Term, 1995, Jan. 3, 1996. The court held that where a Plaintiff has
received workers’ compensation benefits arising from an accident, an
exception to the statute of limitations on tort actions tolls the statutory
period for two months from the first day workers’ compensation were
received.
INSURANCE LAW - UNINSURED MOTORIST PROVISION OF POLICY VIABLE AFTER
TWO YEAR INTERVAL: In General Accident Insurance
Company v. Florence E. Scott, et al., CSA No. 901, Sept. Term, 1994,
Jan. 3, 1996. The court held that when an insured party notified her
insurance company that she intended to file an uninsured motorist claim more
than two years after the arbitrator decided both liability and damages, that
the delay in filing suit was not a defense to payment on the grounds that the
delay was unreasonable and harmed the insurance company’s interest.
The above-noted decisions are deemed to show a trend in the court continuing to
restrict recovery for punitive damages, as well as extending the scope of an
insurer’s duty to defend by permitting the insured, but not the insurer,
to go beyond the four corners of the insurance policy and complaint.
|
