 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Lowe11/8/2000
9 Cum. Supp.), ยง 17-103 of the Transportation Article. Ms. Lowe does not suggest otherwise. In any event, there is no reason to believe that the Universal policy was the only insurance policy that covered the Bob Bell entities at the relevant time.
Permission to Use Vehicle
The key question, then, is whether Melody Lowe's use of the automobile was within the scope of Bell's permission under either the omnibus clause in Part 500 or the omnibus clause in Part 900 of the policy. In order to answer that question, we must look beyond the terms of the policy to the extrinsic evidence offered by Melody Lowe and Universal with the motion and cross-motion for summary judgment.
A motion for summary judgment may be supported by affidavit and, indeed, "shall be supported by affidavit if filed before the day on which the adverse party's initial pleading or motion is filed." Md. Rule 2-501(a) (emphasis added). "When a motion for summary judgment is supported by an affidavit or other statement under oath, an opposing party who desires to controvert any fact contained in it may not rest solely upon allegations contained in the pleadings, but shall support the response by an affidavit or other written statement under oath." Md. Rule 2-501(b).
Our cases recognize that in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must show that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact by proffering facts which would be admissible in evidence. . . . Consequently, mere general allegations which do not show facts in detail and with precision are insufficient to prevent summary judgment. . . . Moreover, a person opposing summary judgment cannot merely allude to the existence of a document and thereby hope to raise the specter of dispute over a material fact which would defeat a motion for summary judgment . . . . Beatty, 330 Md. at 737.
Ms. Lowe attached to her motion for summary judgment a copy of the Universal policy and Universal's response to Ms. Lowe's request for admissions of fact. In its response to the request for admissions of fact, Universal admitted that, on the day of the accident, Ms. Lowe had the permission of Hubert and Rebecca Lowe to use the car. Universal attached to its cross-motion for summary judgment the affidavit of Bell general manager Michael Fitzpatrick. In pertinent part, Mr. Fitzpatrick affirmed:
(3) In August, 1995, Bob Bell purchased from H.O. Lowe, an automobile agency. As part of the sale, Mr. Lowe and his wife were provided with the use of two automobiles. In early 1996, a 1995 Isuzu Rodeo automobile was furnished to Mr. & Mrs. Lowe in place of one of the two automobiles originally furnished to them.
(4) On August 26, 1995, I met with Mr. Lowe at the direction of Mr. Bell, and advised him that only he and his wife had permission to drive the automobiles being furnished to them pursuant to the sale of his automobile agency to Mr. Bell.
(5) In late March, 19 6, again on instructions from Mr. Bell, I met with Mr. H.O. Lowe, and pointed out to him that only he and his wife had permission to drive the automobile which had been furnished to him pursuant to the agreement for the sale of his automobile agency to Bob Bell.
Ms. Lowe filed no written response to Universal's cross-motion for summary judgment. At a hearing on the motion and cross-motion, her counsel argued that the affidavit was "totally irrelevant" because it "goes beyond the four corners of the insurance policy . . . ." Nevertheless, in the event that the court agreed with Universal that such extrinsic evidence should be considered, counsel offered into evidence a letter, dated August 26, 1995, which had appare
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|