Legal Opinion
O'Quinn v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Decided June 2, 2004No. 0658, Sept. Term, 2003PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAdkins, J.
This appeal requires us to decide whether the vehicle that struck appellant Thomas O’Quinn was a “temporary substitute” for a vehicle insured by appellee Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF), in which case the MAIF policy provided liability coverage. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County concluded that the vehicle was not a temporary substitute and granted summary judgment in favor of MAIF on O’Quinn’s declaratory judgment action. We shall reverse that judgment.
FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On August 8, 1998, while Thomas O’Quinn was walking in a parking lot, he was struck by a 1996…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brown v. DermerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- MAMSI Life & Health Insurance v. CallawayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. JohnstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Ambrosio v. Affordable Auto Rental, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1998
- McKee v. Exchange Insurance AssociationSupreme Court of Alabama · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Glaser v. Hartford Casualty InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2005
- W.F. Gebhardt & Co. v. Amer. Euro. Ins.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2021
- Bolden-Gardner v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2021