Quantcast

Law digest – 2/20/14

MARYLAND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS 

Administrative Law, Public information request: Plaintiff’s request to Comptroller of the Treasury to Comptroller under the Maryland Public Information Act to produce to him a list of the names and addresses of those entitled to the 5,000 most valuable lost property accounts, formatted from largest account values to smallest account values, but excluding the precise value of each item, did not require the Comptroller to create a new public record, as Comptroller did not dispute that he collected and maintained the information plaintiff requested in the normal course, nor did he dispute that the information qualified as a “public record” subject to the Maryland Public Information Act, and information was therefore not protected from disclosure; however, because a list sorted by dollar value would reveal additional financial information that plaintiff was not entitled to have, reversal and remand of the circuit court’s decision granting plaintiff’s request was necessary in order to determine the precise scope and format of the list the Comptroller was to produce. Comptroller of the Treasury v. Immanuel, No. 1078, Sept. Term, 2012. RecordFax No. 14-0129-08, 18 pages.

Insurance Law, Auto insurance omnibus clause: Under omnibus clause of insurer’s automobile liability insurance policy, driver did not enjoy coverage derivatively from first permittee, insured’s daughter, because, although driver’s trip to pick up daughter’s children from school was for daughter’s benefit, daughter must have been in the car in order for the expanded coverage to attach to the car and daughter was not in the car when the accident occurred. Payne v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 0046, Sept. Term, 2013. RecordFax No. 14-0129-09, 22 pages.

Workers’ Compensation, Covered employee: Trial court did not err in determining that claimant was a covered employee under Workers’ Compensation Act for injuries claimant suffered outside of Maryland because claimant worked regularly in Maryland and worked in Virginia on a casual, incidental, or occasional basis, Maryland was “home base” of claimant’s employment because employer was a Maryland-based construction company that did not have a Virginia office, claimant was hired in Maryland, and parties intended that claimant would work, at least initially, on a job site located in Maryland. Shapiro & Duncan, Inc. v. Payne, No. 0961, Sept. Term, 2012. RecordFax No. 14-0129-07, 10 pages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 
Scroll To Top