Two insurance coverage issues were addressed by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jeffers, ___ A.3d ___, No. 960, 2020 WL 502612, at *1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. January 31, 2020) (stated not released for permanent publication):
This case involves two issues of insurance coverage that have arisen in the context of judgments for lead poisoning.
[* * *]
We shall hold that the insurer in this case was not obligated to indemnify the insured for bodily injury that occurred before its policy period began or after its policy period ended. Although we recognize that an unborn child may suffer bodily injury from exposure to lead while in utero, we shall hold that the evidence in this case was insufficient to establish when any such injury began, and thus insufficient to establish an obligation on the insurer’s part. Finally, we shall hold that the insurer must pay postjudgment interest on the entire amount of the judgment even if it is obligated to indemnify its insured for only part of the judgment.
Based on these rulings, the appellate court reversed a summary judgment effectively entered against the carrier on the issue of interest liability, affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the carrier on the issue of "bodily injury" liability coverage, and remanded.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments