Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch.

17 Citing cases

  1. Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch.

    469 Md. 704 (Md. 2020)   Cited 61 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "[n]o universal test has ever been formulated for determining whether a duty exists

    The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments in a split decision. See Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 241 Md. App. 94, 209 A.3d 158 (2019) (Friedman, J., dissenting). Steamfitters petitioned for writ of certiorari , which we granted to consider the following questions, which we rephrased:

  2. Janson v. Reithoffer Shows, Inc.

    Case No.: DLB-19-79 (D. Md. Jun. 4, 2020)

    To prevail on her negligence claim, Ms. Janson must prove "1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, 2) that the defendant breached that duty, 3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and 4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of duty." Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 209 A.3d 158, 169 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019) (quoting Rowhouses, Inc. v. Smith, 133 A.3d 1054, 1066 (Md. 2016)), cert. granted, 216 A.3d 937 (Md. 2019). Reithoffer contends that Ms. Janson cannot establish, through lay evidence or the proffered testimony of the expert she retained, that defendant had a duty, that it breached that duty, or that its alleged breach proximately caused her injury. Def.'s Mem. 8.

  3. Ozier v. Lidl U.S. Operations, LLC

    Civil Action TDC-22-2396 (D. Md. Sep. 8, 2023)

    Dismiss at 10-11. ECF No. 12-1 (citing Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch.. 209 A.3d 158. 170 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019)). However, Lidl argues that there is no duty of care here because, under Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 209 A.3d 158 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019).

  4. Brown v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

    Case No.: DLB-19-3301 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    To prevail on their negligence claim, plaintiffs must prove "1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, 2) that the defendant breached that duty, 3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and 4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of duty." Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 209 A.3d 158, 169 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019) (quoting Rowhouses, Inc. v. Smith, 133 A.3d 1054, 1066 (Md. 2016)), aff'd, --- A.3d ----, 2020 WL 4282308 (Md. July 27, 2020). A duty is "an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another."

  5. Randall v. Fleming

    Case No.: DLB-18-2857 (D. Md. Jul. 16, 2020)

    To prevail on their negligence claim, plaintiffs must prove "1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, 2) that the defendant breached that duty, 3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and 4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of duty." Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 209 A.3d 158, 169 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019) (quoting Rowhouses, Inc. v. Smith, 133 A.3d 1054, 1066 (Md. 2016)), cert. granted, 216 A.3d 937 (Md. 2019). Similarly, "a successful claim for breach of implied or express warranty must prove that the breach of warranty was the proximate cause of the injuries or damages of which the plaintiff complains."

  6. Murray v. Hyatt

    No. 1151-2023 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 5, 2024)

    Our precedent is clear that a party's failure to "fully comply with the requirements" of Rule 2-520(e) means that "there is nothing for us to consider on appeal." Steamfitters Loc. Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 241 Md.App. 94, 131-32 (2019) (quoting Black v. Leatherwood Motor Coach Corp., 92 Md.App. 27, 34 (1992)). Mr. Murray agreed to the proposed jury instruction on contributory negligence; he cannot now claim that the issue was erroneously submitted to the jury.

  7. McCormick v. Hous. Auth. of Balt. City

    No. 165-2023 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jun. 11, 2024)

    We also decline, within our discretion, HABC's request for sanctions under Md. Rule 8-501(m). Steamfitters Loc. Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 241 Md.App. 94, 112 (2019), aff'd, 469 Md. 704 (2020). JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY AFFIRMED.

  8. McCormick v. Hous. Auth. of Balt. City

    No. 165-2023 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 30, 2024)

    We also decline, within our discretion, HABC's request for sanctions under Md. Rule 8-501(m). Steamfitters Loc. Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 241 Md.App. 94, 112 (2019), aff'd, 469 Md. 704 (2020). JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY AFFIRMED.

  9. Bland v. EMCOR Facilities Servs.

    No. 1444-2022 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 20, 2023)

    We review the circuit court's decision on a motion for judgment de novo. Steamfitters Loc. Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 241 Md.App. 94, 114 (2019), aff'd, 469 Md. 704 (2020).

  10. LinkIT, LLC v. The Midtown Grp. Pers.

    No. 0375-2020 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 13, 2021)

    An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to grant or deny a particular jury instruction using an abuse of discretion standard. Giant of Md., LLC v. Webb, 249 Md.App. 545, 569 (2021) (citing Steamfitters Loc. Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 241 Md.App. 94, 124-25 (2019)). "In deciding whether to grant a requested jury instruction, a trial court must consider 'whether the requested instruction was a correct exposition of the law, whether that law was applicable in light of the evidence before the jury, and finally whether the substance of the requested instruction was fairly covered by the instruction actually given.'"