Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation v. Yanni (Ct of Appeals)

Filed March 15, 2007. Opinion by Judge Lynne Battaglia, joined by Judge Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. as to the immunity issue only. Dissenting opinion by Judge Alan Wilner (retired, specially assigned).

From the opinion's headnote:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - INSURER - COVERED CLAIM - IMMUNITY
The Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation (“PCIGC”) sought review of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County’s entry of summary judgment for Peter L. Yanni in which the Circuit Court upheld the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s award of late-payment penalties and attorneys’ fees to Yanni for PCIGC’s tardy payment of Yanni’s workers’ compensation award. The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Yanni and held that the penalties should not have been assessed against the PCIGC because it was not an “insurer” for purposes of Section 9-728 of the Labor and Employment Article, and because the late-payment penalties were not part of Yanni’s “covered claims,” as the term is defined in Section 9-301(d) of the Insurance Article. The Court also concluded that, even if the PCIGC were an “insurer,” and the penalties were part of the “covered claim,” it was immune from the assessment of late-payment penalties under the provisions of Section 9-314(a) of the Insurance Article and Section 5-412 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

The court's official headnote adequately captures the substance of the majority opinion, but in dissent, Judge Wilner (joined by Cheif Judge Robert Bell) responded that the majority resorts to an overly constrained interpretation to come up with a conclusion at odds with the stated purposes for establishing PCIGC, "to provide a mechanism for the prompt payment of covered claims". Explicit language in the statute drops PCIGC into the shoes of the defaulting insurer, and thus PCIGC is an insurer for the perposes of the statuory scheme. Moreover, since the failure to timely pay the amounts due to Yanni was due to PCIGC's failure to timely pay amounts due under the policy, the penalties most certainly should be deemed as "arise out of" the policy. Finally, the dissent found the reasoning to afford immunity to PCIGC, derived for other cases, inapposite here, where PCIGC was being held accountable for its own failure to comply with the statute's requirement, and to suggest a different channel to seek redress as suggested in the majority opinion, "makes utterly no sense", and for all those reasons, would have affirmed the judgment of the court below.

The opinion is available in PDF format.

Harkum v. US (Maryland U.S.D.C.)(not approved for publication)

Decided December 29, 2006 -- Opinion by Judge J. Frederick Motz (not approved for publication)

In a brief memorandum opinion providing relatively few factual details of the case, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed a motion for summary judgment filed by the United States regarding Plaintiff's six civil counts under Maryland common law arising out of the arrest and shooting of Joseph Schultz. The opinion does not specify either the precise causes of action or the relationship between Plaintiff and Joseph Schultz, but indicates that Plaintiff was in Schultz's presence when a federal agent shot him.

The Court held that sovereign immunity entitled the United States to judgment as a matter of law on Counts I and II of the complaint, holding that the discretionary function exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act applies to those counts. The Court denied summary judgment against all four remaining counts, finding that a reasonable fact finder could find that the federal agent who shot Schultz did so with recklessness or gross negligence and therefore find for Plaintiff.

The Court also mentioned the existence of a separate, prior federal civil action by Schultz against federal agent Braga, distinguishing the cases in a brief footnote.

The full opinion and associated order are available in PDF format.

Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Baltimore City Police Department (Maryland U.S.D.C.)(not approved for publication)

Decided December 1, 2006--Opinion by Catherine C. Blake (not approved for publication)

Motion to deny class certification status is premature when class certification had not yet been requested. Sovereign immunity is available for claims for monetary damages, but not equitable relief. Governmental immunity is available for common law claims. Preliminary denial of motion to certify question to state court when there is a purely federal question pending as to whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied.

The full opinion is available in PDF.