 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hastings v. William H. Knott Inc.3/4/1997
Opinion by Thieme, J.
This appeal is from a garnishment action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Howe, J.) wherein summary judgment was entered in favor of appellee. We shall affirm.
FACTS
Appellant, Ronald Hastings, was employed by Glen Arm Masonry, a subcontractor of William H. Knott, Inc., a general contractor. Knott also entered into a contractual agreement with Labor World U.S.A., Inc. for temporary laborers. Robert Wilkinson, a temporary worker of Labor World who was then employed by Knott, was operating a backhoe with due authorization when he caused the backhoe to come in contact with a scaffold upon which Hastings was standing. Hastings fell approximately 25-30 feet and sustained serious injuries.
At the time of this incident, Knott had in force a general commercial liability insurance policy with appellee United States Fidelity and Guaranty (USF&G;. Within the list of exclusions from coverage was the following:
2. Each of the following is also an insured:
a. Your employees ... but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you. However, none of these employees is an insured for:
(1) "Bodily injury" or "personal injury" to you or to a co-employee while in the course of his or her employment; ....
Hastings brought an action for negligence against all involved parties. It was and is contended by USF&G;that, under the exclusion of the policy set forth above, Wilkinson was not covered by Knott's liability insurance issued by USF&G; and, notwithstanding the lack of coverage, he never tendered his defense of the suit to USF&G;
Wilkinson was served with process in June of 1992, approximately six months before trial. USF&G;stated that it was aware of Wilkinson's having been served, and that it did not intend to provide a defense for him. By correspondence of 2 November 1992, USF&G;was notified by Hastings that it would be looked upon for satisfaction of the judgment obtained against Wilkinson.
All defendants, with the exception of Wilkinson, were granted summary judgment. The circuit court found that Wilkinson was an actual employee and that Hastings was a statutory employee of Knott at the time of the circumstances giving rise to the instant appeal, and awarded Hastings $1,031,800.37. Hastings later filed a garnishment action against USF&G; contending that Wilkinson was an insured party under Knott's policy. USF&G;moved for, and was granted, summary judgment in this action. Hastings noted this appeal.
Four questions are presented for appellate review, which we reorganize slightly for the purposes of our discussion:
1. Does the co-employee exception to liability coverage set forth in the subject insurance policy apply, thereby precluding recovery?
2. Does the workers' compensation exclusion of Knott's insurance policy apply?
3. Was appellee prejudiced by the judgment debtor's failure to request a defense?
4. Is appellant entitled to interest on the judgment awarded against Wilkinson on 16 November 1992?
We answer "Yes" to question 1, and hold that the circuit court correctly construed the co-employee exclusion found in the insurance agreement at issue and held that the recovery in the garnishment action against appellee is therefore precluded. Accordingly, we need not address the remaining issues, which become moot.
DISCUSSION
I.
Absent ambiguity, terms of an insurance policy are strictly construed and enforced. Howell v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 305 Md. 435, 505 A.2d 109 (1986); Blue Bird C
Page 1 2 3 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|