JMP Assiciates, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 01 September 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 72,72 |
Citation | 345 Md. 630,693 A.2d 832 |
Parties | JMP ASSOCIATES, INC. v. The ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY. , |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Walter H. Madden, Rockville, for Petitioner.
Harry J. Carleton (Cotter, Fiscella Carleton, on brief), Fairfax, VA, for Respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI and RAKER, JJ., and MARVIN H. SMITH, Judge (retired), Specially Assigned.
We shall here hold that under the facts in this case the "on" requirement in a jeweler's block policy that an "employee or sales personnel [be] in or on the vehicle at the time of the loss" is ambiguous. 1 (Emphasis added.)
Petitioner JMP Associates, Inc. (JMP) sued respondent The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for breach of contract under a jeweler's block policy. We conclude that the trial judge erred in holding the term "in or on" unambiguous and in granting summary judgment in favor of St. Paul. The Court of Special Appeals likewise erred when it affirmed that judgment. Accordingly, we shall reverse.
In JMP Assoc. v. St. Paul Fire, 109 Md.App. 343, 674 A.2d 562 (1996), the intermediate appellate court stated:
(Emphasis added).
Id. at 345-46, 674 A.2d at 563. The Court of Special Appeals concluded, " '[O]n' means 'on' and not 'near.' " Id. at 350, 674 A.2d at 565. It said it thus "align[ed] [itself] with the majority view" and held that "[t]he [trial] court did not err in applying the exclusion." Id.
We granted JMP's petition for certiorari to address the important question here presented.
The Law
Maryland Rule 2-501(e) provides:
"The court shall enter judgment in favor of or against the moving party if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
The law relative to summary judgment has been stated and restated by this Court many times. See, e.g., Goodwich v. Sinai Hosp., 343 Md. 185, 206-07, 680 A.2d 1067, 1076-77 (1996); Heat & Power v. Air Prods., 320 Md. 584, 591-92, 578 A.2d 1202, 1205-06 (1990); King v. Bankerd, 303 Md. 98, 110-12, 492 A.2d 608, 614-15 (1985); and Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302, 304-05, 413 A.2d 170, 171 (1980).
In King, Judge Cole said for the Court:
King, 303 Md. at 110-11, 492 A.2d at 614.
In Bailer v. Erie Ins., 344 Md. 515, 687 A.2d 1375 (1997), Judge Rodowsky recently set forth for the Court the bases for construction of insurance policies
Bailer, 344 Md. at 521-22, 687 A.2d at 1378. To similar effect, see Collier v. MD-Individual Practice, 327 Md. 1, 5-6, 607 A.2d 537, 539 (1992) ( ); Pacific Indem. v. Interstate Fire & Cas., 302 Md. 383, 388-89, 488 A.2d 486, 488-89 (1985); Truck Ins. Exch. v. Marks Rentals, 288 Md. 428, 435, 418 A.2d 1187, 1190 (1980). In Collier, this Court made the specific statement, "In Maryland insurance policies ordinarily are construed in the same manner as contracts generally." 327 Md. at 5, 607 A.2d at 539.
In Orkin v. Jacobson, 274 Md. 124, 332 A.2d 901 (1975), we said:
"Our predecessors in Waters v. Griffith, 2 Md. 326, 333 [ (1852) ], said that '[w]e must give, if we can, some distinct meaning to every word employed in the contract....' To like effect see 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 259 (1964), citing, among other cases, Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crane, 16 Md. 260 (1860):
'- ' § 259. Giving effect to entire con tract, and all its parts and language.
Orkin, 274 Md. at 129-30, 332 A.2d at 904. Similar statements are found in 43 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 275 (1982) and 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 386 (1991). To like effect, see Sagner v. Glenangus Farms, Inc., 234 Md. 156, 167, 198 A.2d 277, 283 (1964).
We have reviewed each of the cases cited by the Court of Special Appeals and many other cases. We shall discuss each of these cases other than an unreported Ohio intermediate appellate court opinion that was decided contrary to the view espoused by our intermediate appellate court and by St. Paul. We find no clear cut majority view applicable to this case. Appellate cases heretofore decided really shed little light on the issue here because those cases represent situations or language so substantially different from that in the case before us. Only two of the cases, Phil G. Ruvelson, Inc. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PHILA. INDEMNITY INS. CO. v. Md. Yacht Club, Inc.
...the opportunity to submit extrinsic evidence in support of its construction of the exclusion." See JMP Assocs. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 345 Md. 630, 648, 693 A.2d 832 (1997). It maintains that extrinsic evidence would support its position as to the parties' intent. At oral argume......
-
EMMI INC. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
...block insurance was conceived by Lloyds of London at the turn of the previous century. (JMP Associates, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1997) 345 Md. 630, 693 A.2d 832, fn. 1.) The "all risk" insurance is different from other property or "named peril" insurance because the policy i......
-
E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
...Jeweler's block insurance was conceived by Lloyds of London at the turn of the century. (JMP Associates, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1997) 345 Md. 630, 693 A.2d 832, fn. 1; 70 N.Y.Jur.2d (1998) Insurance, § 1530; Annot., Construction and Effect of "Jeweler's Block" Policies or ......
-
Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. v. Rams Head Savage Mill, LLC
...prudent layperson would attach to the term." Taylor , 233 Md. App. at 499, 165 A.3d 624 (quoting JMP Assocs., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 345 Md. 630, 635, 693 A.2d 832 (1997) ). "If the language in an insurance policy suggests more than one meaning to a reasonably prudent lay......
-
CHAPTER 3
...was conceived by Lloyds of London at the turn of the previous century. (JMP Associates, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (Md. 1997) 693 A.2d 832, fn.1.) The “all risk” insurance is different from other property or “named peril” insurance because the policy insures all risks of loss o......
-
The Wacky World of Collision and Comprehensive Coverages: Intentional Injury and Illegal Activity Exclusions
...and Blasting, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 665 A.2d 671, 675 (Me. 1995); JMP Assocs., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 693 A.2d 832, 834 (Md. 1997); Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 269 N.W.2d 34, 36 (Minn. 1978); Peterson v. Continental Boiler Works......