 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Maryland Yacht Club12/10/1999
sponse, the assailant shot Ms. Webster in the head.
GEICO's policy provided coverage for "`damages for bodily injury and property damage caused by accident which the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that vehicle.'" Webster, slip op. at 3 (emphasis omitted). The victim's parents argued, inter alia, that they were entitled to recover under their policy because the phrase, "arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured motor vehicle," included an attempted carjacking. We rejected such a broad interpretation, stating, in part, that "Webster's injuries were not causally connected to the use of an uninsured vehicle, but rather were caused by [the carjacker's] assault." Id., slip op. at 10. In reaching our decision, we relied on numerous cases from other jurisdictions, including Huston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 132 (4th Cir. 1996). That case recognized that injuries resulting from a carjacking do not arise from use of the vehicle.
In Webster, we also considered our decision in Wright, which involved an assault on motorists. There, a man got out of his car, approached a vehicle that had stopped at a stop sign, and began firing into the passenger compartment, injuring the driver and a passenger. The assailant then returned to his car and drove away. The victims filed suit against their automobile insurance company, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), for uninsured motorist coverage. Under the Allstate policy, the insurer agreed to "`pay damages for bodily injury [,] sickness, disease or death, or property damage which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured auto. Injury must be caused by accident and arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured auto.'" Wright, slip op. at ____ (emphasis added). The Court determined that the victims were not covered under the policy. We reasoned that the victims
were injured because [the assailant] shot them, not because he was using a car. . . . We agree that the use of the car was incidental to the attempt to kill [the driver]. It was not directly, causally, connected to the incident.
Were we to hold otherwise . . . , any victim of a crime whose assailant fled the scene of a crime in a car could seek recovery from his own insurer if he had a policy containing uninsured motorists coverage. Uninsured motorists coverage was never intended to cover the type of injuries presented by the facts of this case.
Id., slip op at ____.
Here, as in Wright and Webster, common sense compels the conclusion that the bodily injury exclusion did not bar coverage for Bock's wrongful termination claim. We are equally unpersuaded by appellant's argument that the trial court failed to give effect to the remaining words of the clause introducing the exclusions ("directly or indirectly resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving").
Even if, arguendo, the bodily injury exclusion were ambiguous, the Insurer would fare no better. In analyzing the issues presented here, we are mindful of the general purpose that a D&O;policy serves. The demand for D&O;insurance has its origins in basic corporate law. A board of directors is charged with managing the "business and affairs" of its corporation. Md. Code (1975, 1993 Repl. Vol., 1999 Supp.), § 2-401(a) of the Corporations & Associations Article ("C.A."). The officers designated by the board are the day-to-day managers. See id. § 2-414(a); James J. Hanks, Jr., Maryland Corporation Law § 6.19, at 194-95 (Supp. 1996-2). These principles
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|