Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Payne v. Erie Insurance Exchange

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 30, 2015No. 38/14Published

1Concurrence

WATTS, J,

concurring, in which HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ, join.

Respectfully, I concur in the judgment only.1 I would hold that, where a named insured has expressly prohibited a second permittee from driving a vehicle, coverage under an omnibus clause may extend to the second permittee only if, at the time of the accident: (1) the first permittee is in the vehicle; (2) the second permittee is using the vehicle for some purpose or benefit of the first permittee; and (3) the use of the vehicle is within the scope of permission for use that the named insured granted.

*400After a thorough review of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hardware Mutual Casualty v. SameCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
  2. Federal Insurance v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  3. Bond v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  4. Melvin v. American Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  5. Maryland Indemnity Insurance v. KornkeCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1974

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

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

Powered by the Exa API