Rossello v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

Citation468 Md. 92,226 A.3d 444
Decision Date03 April 2020
Docket NumberNo. 24, September Term, 2019,24, September Term, 2019
Parties Patrick ROSSELLO v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Argued by Gardner M. Duvall (Ioana Kastellorizios, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP, Baltimore, MD; Gary J. Ignatowski, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant.

Argued by Harry Lee (Catherine D. Cockerham, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC; Kamil Ismail, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee.

John Amato, IV, Esquire, Goodman Meagher & Enoch, LLP, 111 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, for Amicus Curiae Daquantay Robinson and Brionna Heckstall.

Stuart M.G. Seraina, Esquire, Louis P. Malick, Esquire, Kramon & Graham, P.A., One South Street, Suite 2600, Baltimore, MD 21202, for Amicus Curiae CX Reinsurance Company Limited.

Lee H. Ogburn, Esquire, Steven M. Klepper, Esquire, Kramon & Graham, P.A., One South Street, Suite 2600, Baltimore, MD 21202, for Amicus Curiae Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.

Adam J. Singer, Esquire, Laura A. Foggan, Esquire, Crowell & Moring LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20004, for Amicus Curiae The Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Clayton Greene, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Getty, J.

Patrick Rossello was diagnosed with mesothelioma

in 2013, nearly forty years after exposure to asbestos at his place of work in 1974. Mr. Rossello subsequently won a $2,682,847.26 judgment against the asbestos installer. Later, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City issued a writ of garnishment requiring the insurer of the asbestos installer to satisfy the judgment. After a series of motions resulting in the court granting the insurer's motion to stay the garnishment, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The question before the circuit court was how to allocate loss, if at all, among various triggered insurance policies or periods of no insurance because the asbestos installer was only insured by the insurer from 1974 to 1977 through four separate Comprehensive General Liability policies. Mr. Rossello argued that the insurer was liable for the entirety of the judgment spanning forty years, but the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found that Mr. Rossello's damages must be allocated on a pro rata, time-on-the-risk basis across all insured and insurable periods triggered by Mr. Rossello's injuries, i.e., 1974 to 1985—with 1985 being the last practicable year that the asbestos installer could have acquired asbestos liability insurance. Now, we consider whether the circuit court properly applied the pro rata allocation approach, or instead, whether it should have applied a joint-and-several approach that would have required the insurer to cover the entire judgment.

BACKGROUND
A. The Comprehensive General Liability Policies.

Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. ("Mitchell") was a mechanical contractor that sold, distributed, and installed products containing asbestos until 1976 when it ceased all operations. From January 1, 1974 through July 31, 1977, Mitchell was insured by the Maryland Casualty Company1 under a series of standard Comprehensive General Liability ("CGL")2 policy agreements (collectively, the "Policies").3 Maryland Casualty Company issued one primary insurance policy and one umbrella/excess policy to Mitchell for each of the following policy periods:

January 1, 1974 to January 1, 1975;
January 1, 1975 to January 1, 1976;
January 1, 1976 to January 1, 1977; and
January 1, 1977 to July 31, 1977.

The relevant policy language is substantively the same for each of the Policies.

The Policies require the Maryland Casualty Company to pay on behalf of Mitchell "all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of ... bodily injury ... to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence." The "Definitions" section of the Policies provide two related and important definitions:

"bodily injury" means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by any person which occurs during the policy period, including death at any time resulting therefrom;
"occurrence" means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.

The Policies contain two limits on Mitchell's liability: a "per occurrence" limit and an "aggregate" limit. The per occurrence limit is the maximum amount Mitchell will pay for all losses resulting from any one occurrence. The aggregate limit is the maximum total amount Mitchell will pay for all insurable losses regardless of the number of occurrences or losses. Both the per occurrence and the aggregate limits are $1 million for Mitchell's primary policies and $2 million for the umbrella/excess policies.

After it ceased operations in 1976, Mitchell's last policy expired on July 31, 1977, after which it never again acquired insurance.

B. Mr. Rossello's Injury and Suit.

In 1974, Petitioner Patrick Rossello worked in the Union Trust Bank Building in which Mitchell was performing construction and renovations. Mr. Rossello unknowingly inhaled asbestos originating from the construction products used by Mitchell. Mr. Rossello's injuries developed over the next forty years, manifesting in a mesothelioma

diagnosis in 2013. Mr. Rossello brought this strict liability and negligent failure to warn action against Mitchell in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The case proceeded to trial in April 2016 and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Rossello for compensatory damages in the amount of $8,114,166.79. The trial court reduced the judgment for the settlement of joint tortfeasors4 and entered a final judgment in the amount of $2,682,847.26 plus interest and costs.5

To collect his judgment, Mr. Rossello initiated garnishment proceedings against Respondent Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich"), successor by merger to Maryland Casualty Company. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City issued a writ of garnishment directed at Zurich as insurer of Mitchell. After a series of motions resulting in the court granting Zurich's motion to stay the garnishment, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The question before the circuit court was how much Zurich was responsible for paying on the judgment against Mitchell. Mr. Rossello contended that the entire $2,682,847.26 judgment should be satisfied by the 1974 CGL policy, not subject to the per occurrence or aggregate limits. Zurich rebutted that the relevant period of time to allocate the judgment is forty years, 1974 through 2013, i.e., the year of exposure through the year of manifestation and diagnosis of mesothelioma

. In that scenario, Zurich would be responsible for one-fortieth of the judgment (or $67,071.19) for each year of coverage, subject to aggregate limits. Zurich argued in the alternative that the relevant time period is twelve years, from 1974 through 19851985 being the last year that asbestos risk insurance was available to Mitchell. In that scenario, $223,570.60 (one-twelfth of $2,682,847.26) would be the maximum amount recoverable from Zurich as to any one policy year from 1974 through 1977, while Mitchell stood self-insured from 1986 to 2013.

In a written opinion and order, the circuit court rejected Mr. Rossello's contention that he is entitled to the entire judgment under the 1974 policy. The circuit court applied Maryland pro rata allocation principles, as adopted in Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. , 324 Md. 44, 595 A.2d 469 (1991) and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co. , 145 Md. App. 256, 802 A.2d 1070 (2002).6 Under those principles, the court found that Mr. Rossello's damages must be allocated on a pro rata, time-on-the-risk basis across all insured and insurable periods triggered by Mr. Rossello's injuries—i.e., 1974 to 1985. The court explained:

The instructions of Lloyd and Utica are properly applied in this case. Coverage under the Zurich CGL policy was first triggered by [Mr. Rossello's] exposure and inhalation of asbestos in 1974, as the jury found on the evidence at trial. The medical evidence at trial established in the circumstances of the case, that the occurrence of [Mr. Rossello's] bodily injury continued at least until manifestation of [Mr. Rossello's] mesothelioma

and diagnosis in 2013. Consequent damages are allocable to the entire period of continuing bodily injury as insurable risk. However, such insurance was not available after 1985, and allocation of damages should extend through insured and insurable policy periods. Sums payable by Zurich will be allocated to the actual policy periods, while Mitchell remains responsible for allocations to insurable periods for which Mitchell elected not to secure coverage.

A question of fact remained as to the reasonable commercial availability of CGL or excess coverage for any period from 1977 through 1985. At trial, Mitchell did not present any evidence that coverage was unavailable. Still, the court concluded that Zurich was liable for the pro rata portion allocable to each of its four policy periods, ordering garnishment "in the amount of $223,570.60 within the occurrence limit of the 1974" policy and "$223,570.60 for each policy year 1975, 1976, and 1977, subject to the aggregate limits for each year." The circuit court further ordered the parties to proceed to discovery, specifically ordering Zurich to supplement interrogatory answers addressing aggregate limits. Zurich answered the pending discovery, stating that its expert witness determined that the amount owed pursuant to the allocation ruling was $613,233.00. Mr. Rossello initiated further discovery concerning the factual basis and methodology of the expert opinion, but the parties agreed that such discovery would be expensive and time-consuming....

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • CX Reinsurance Co. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 29, 2022
    ...a question of law," this Court reviews it de novo , without deference to the decisions of the lower courts. Rossello v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. , 468 Md. 92, 102, 226 A.3d 444 (2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "In reviewing a grant of summary judgment ..., we independentl......
  • De Macedo v. Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 11, 2022
    ...court's grant of summary judgment was proper is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal." Rossello v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co ., 468 Md. 92, 102, 226 A.3d 444 (2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "In reviewing a grant of summary judgment under Md. Rule 2-501, we......
  • Selective Way Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 2, 2023
    ...... appearance or filed any responsive pleadings:. "Fireman's Fund Insurance Company";. "National Surety Corp."; "Zurich";. "Peerless Insurance Company"; "Excelsior. Insurance Company"; "Harleysville Mutual Insurance. Company"; "PMA"; "Discover ... court. CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Johnson , 481 Md. 472, 484 (2022) (quoting Rossello v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. , 468 Md. 92, 102 (2020)). . .          "There. is a well-established 'general rule that ......
  • Radiator Speciality Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • December 16, 2022
    ..."all sums" must be present in the policy to warrant application of all sums allocation.[8] See, e.g., Rossello v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 468 Md. 92, 119 (2020); Goodyear Tire &Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 516 (2002); Keene Corp., 667 F.2d at 1047-50; see also Thomas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT