Legal Opinion

Smith v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 14, 1992No. 92PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RODOWSKY, Judge.

This case involves surplus line property insurance. In that context, “ ‘[s]urplus line’ insurance means the full amount or policy of insurance required to protect the interest of the insured which cannot be obtained ... from insurers authorized to do business in this State.” Md.Code (1957, 1991 Repl.Vol.), Art. 48A, § 184(a).1 Section 240A(a)(3) requires that an “insurer,” giving notice of intention to cancel or not to renew a policy of property insurance “issued in this State,” is obliged to see that the notice “is sent to the insured not less than 45 days prior to the date…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Railroad Roofing & Building Supply Co. v. Financial Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  2. Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Associates, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  3. Clarke v. Progressive American Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1985
  4. Adams v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty FundAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
  5. Villagonza v. Hawaii Insurance Guaranty Ass'nHawaii Supreme Court · 1989

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commercial Financial Corp.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 2001
  2. Meadowlark Insurance v. Insurance CommissionerCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API