Except as provided in section 30524 in this title, (a) the liability of the owner of a vessel for any claim, debt or liability described in subsection (b) shall not exceed the value of the vessel and pending freight. If the vessel has more than one owner, the proportionate share of the liability of any one owner shall not exceed that owner's proportionate interest in the vessel and pending freight.
Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Ship Owners Seek cap on Non-economic Damages in Federal Court for Claims relating to the Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse.
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
RSRM Welcomes Associate Milton Warren!
Milton P. Warren is a 2000 graduate of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. While attending law school, Mr. warren completed the Access to Bail and Justice clinical law program providing access to pre-trial release and legal representation to indigent clients in Baltimore City pursuant to Maryland Rule 16 as a student-attorney. Mr. Warren also spent time interning at the States Attorney office located in Northumberland County, Virginia.
Immediately after graduating law school, Mr. Warren began working at a local Baltimore County law firm gaining experience in general practice civil litigation where he prosecuted auto torts, premises liability, estate probate and alternative dispute resolution cases.
Mr. Warren became a solo practitioner in 2003, building his private law firm as a general practitioner in addition to handling referral cases from other law firms in the State of Maryland and, recently, in North Carolina.
Outside of the office, Mr. Warren enjoys playing tennis, cooking, spending time with his wife Julie and family in Harford County, Maryland.
For Hearing Loss Claims, the Last Injurious Exposure Rule does not Apply to Insurers
For Hearing Loss Claims, the Last Injurious Exposure Rule does not Apply to Insurers
Pennsylvania
Manufacturers Association v. William Cree, et. al.
Claimant William Cree
filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Commission for binaural hearing
loss with a date of disablement of August 31, 2018, noting Prince George’s
County as the Employer.
Prince George’s County
impleaded Cree’s prior employers, The Town of Riverdale and the City of Laurel,
which they claimed also contributed to Claimant’s hearing loss. The City of Laurel impleaded Pennsylvania
Manufacturers Association (“PMA”), which insured the City during the first half
of Claimant’s employment with the City of Laurel.
The Workers’ Compensation
Commission held a hearing to determine liability for Claimant’s hearing
loss. At that hearing, PMA argued that
it would not be considered the last insurer chronologically of the City, and
therefore should be relieved of any liability pursuant to the last injurious
exposure rule. Subsequently, the
Commission issued an Order finding that the last injurious exposure rule did
not apply to Claimant’s claim, and therefore also finding that all three of
Claimant’s employers were liable for Claimant’s hearing loss, as was the
insurer, PMA.
PMA initiated an
on-the-record appeal in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
affirmed the Commission’s decision. PMA
then initiated an appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland. The Appellate Court of Maryland also affirmed
the Commission’s decision.
In coming to their
decision, The Appellate Court of Maryland looked at the history of the law, and
the legislative intent for such laws.
They noted that while the last injurious exposure rule applies to
employers and insurers for occupational diseases, it clearly does not apply to
employers in hearing loss cases. The
question, then, was whether the last injurious exposure rule applies to
insurers of employers in hearing loss cases.
PMA put forth two
arguments at The Appellate Court of Maryland: (1) the statutes that deal with
hearing loss (Labor and Employment §9-651 and §9-652) do not use the term
“insurer” and therefore these provisions do not apply to insurers – only
employers; and (2) the statute that deals with the last injurious exposure rule
(Labor and Employment §9-502) has two separate paragraphs - one applying to employer, and one applying to
insurers - therefore the last injurious exposure rule applies independently to
insurers, even when it does not apply to the employers that they insure.
The Appellate Court of
Maryland was not convinced by either of these arguments. Instead, noting that there was no indication
in the available legislative history that the General Assembly believed that a
claim for occupational hearing loss would be subject to the last injurious
exposure rule. Further, the last
injurious exposure rule directly contradicts the method for determining
liability for a claimant’s hearing loss, and accordingly to Yox v. Tru-Rol
Co., 380 Md. 326 (2004), a general provision governing occupational
diseases is not controlling when it is inconsistent with the approach that the
General Assembly has specified for claims of occupational hearing loss.
- Ashley Bond, Associate
Monday, February 12, 2024
RSRM Welcomes Associate Audreina Blanding!
Thursday, January 25, 2024
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirms dismissal of wrongful death suit holding that the Worker's Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy for non-dependent tort actions.
Summer Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, Inc.
Appellate Court of Maryland, filed. November 30, 2023 (Wright, J.)
In Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, the Appellate Court of Maryland considered whether the Worker’s Compensation Act barred a non-dependent from bringing a wrongful death tort action against the decedent’s employer. Ultimately, the Appellate Court held that the Act barred the non-dependent’s tort action and affirmed the Circuit Court’s dismissal of the wrongful death suit.
The
case arose from the appellant’s late father’s tragic death that occurred while
he was working for the Appellee. It was undisputed that the father’s death
“arose out of and in the course of his employment.” The Appellant, the
decedent’s forty-seven-year-old daughter, had no right to benefits under the
Worker’s Compensation Act as she was not a dependent of her late father. She
filed a wrongful death negligence action against the appellee-employer in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The employer thereafter moved to dismiss
the action, contending that the Appellant had no viable tort action
against the employer because the Worker’s Compensation Act provided the
“exclusive” remedy for damages stemming from her decedent-father’s work-related
injury. The Circuit Court agreed and
dismissed the Appellant’s action for failure to state a claim.
On
Appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland traced the history of the Worker’s
Compensation Act, enacted in 1914. Prior to the Worker’s Compensation Act, the
worker could sue the employer for negligence and the employer could likewise
assert defenses such as contributory negligence and assumption of the
risk. The Act’s passage reflected a
“compromise between employees’ rights to pursue common law and other statutory
damages for their injuries, and the burden to employers of having to provide
workers’ compensation benefits.” See Hauch v. Connor, 295 Md. 120, 127
(1983)). Under the Act, the employer is required to pay, regardless of fault.
In exchange, the employer is shielded from common law liability as the Act is
the exclusive remedy for injured employees and their dependents, also referred
to as the “exclusivity provision.” There are two exceptions to the exclusivity
provision: 1) where an employer fails to provide compensation in accordance
with the Act and 2) where an employer deliberately injures or kills a covered
employee. Neither exception applied to the circumstances before the Ledford
court.
While acknowledging that neither Maryland appellate court has encountered the precise issue (whether the exclusivity provision applies to a non-dependent), the Ledford court recognized that Maryland’s appellate courts have considered “whether a wrongful death plaintiff is permitted to bring a wrongful death claim when a covered employee is killed in the course of his or her employment.” The court cited two examples, Koche v. Cox and Austin v. Thrifty Diversified, Inc., both standing for the proposition that, where an injury arises out of or in the course of employment, the sole remedy is the Worker’s Compensation Act. Applying these cases and the language of the Act to the Appellant’s circumstances, the court concluded that the appellee-employer’s liability was “exclusively within the worker’s compensation act” and further reasoned that when a covered employee is injured or killed in the course of his or her employment, the employer’s liability and any recovery resulting from that liability is exclusive to the Act, regardless of whether an otherwise proper wrongful death plaintiff is entitled to benefits under the Act.” (emphasis added).
-Joseph Kavanaugh, Associate
Tuesday, January 9, 2024
RSRM Welcomes Law Clerk Sean Delaney!
Sean is a current 2L at the University of Baltimore School of Law. There he is a staff editor of the University of Baltimore Law Review. His prior legal experience includes an internship with the U.S. Army JAG office at Fort Detrick. He also has experience serving as a legal writing fellow and law scholar for Civil Procedure II and Property. Sean is a 2022 graduate of the University of Maryland, where he majored in Information Science and Criminal Justice.
Welcome to the Team!
Monday, January 8, 2024
Congratulations to RSRM's 2024 Maryland Super Lawyers
Congratulations to the five RSRM attorneys who were selected to Maryland's 2024 Super Lawyers!