Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided September 12, 1990No. 91, September Term, 1989Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ELDRIDGE, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which COLE, J., concurs.

The majority does not address whether the Owner could enforce a contractual provision requiring the Contractor to obtain an insurance policy that would indemnify the Owner for the Owner’s sole negligence. The majority opinion does *598take the position that where such a new insurance policy or new endorsement is in fact procured, the Owner can reap the benefits of that insurance policy despite the prohibition embodied in Maryland Code (1974, 1989 Repl.Vol.), § 5-305 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Kaczorowski v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  2. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. G.C. Zarnas & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  3. Jemco, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  4. Champagnie v. WE O'Neil Construction Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1979
  5. Peeples v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980

13 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