King v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
RODOWSKY, Judge.
This action was brought by the insureds against the insurer on a policy of underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance. Trial was before a jury. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, at the request of the insurer, forbade the parties from identifying the insurer as the defendant before the jury. Submitting that this restriction constituted reversible error, the insureds appeal from a judgment that was within the limits of the tortfeasor’s automobile liability policy. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the insureds’ point is well taken.
On the date of the automobile…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Craig v. HarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Doe v. StegallCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- 20 Fair empl.prac.cas. 457, 20 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,136 Southern Methodist University Association of Women Law Students, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Wynne & Jaffe, Southern Methodist University Association of Women Law Students, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Thompson, Knight, Simmons & BullionCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Winner v. RatzlaffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1973
- Harris v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Interphase Garment Solutions, LLC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2008
- Earle v. CobbKentucky Supreme Court · 2004
- Smith v. SummersCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Hughes v. LampmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2006
- Bingham v. Poswistilo, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2011
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.