15 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Collier v. MD-Individual Practice Ass'ngreen2 sentences2008In Bausch & Lomb, 355 Md. 566, 591-92 , 735 A.2d 1081, 1095 (1999) (quoting Collier v. MD-Individual Practice, 327 Md. 1, 16-17 , 607 A.2d 537, 542-45 (1992)), we stated as follows: “From the standpoint of a strict application of the American rule, there is no logical reason why the successful plaintiff’s action on a liability insurance policy for breach of a promise to defend, or to pay the cost of defense, should include counsel fees in prosecuting the breach of contract action, when successful plaintiffs’ actions for other breaches of insurance contracts, or for breaches of other contracts, 2008In Bausch & Lomb, 355 Md. 566, 591-92 , 735 A.2d 1081, 1095 (1999) (quoting Collier v. MD-Individual Practice, 327 Md. 1, 16-17 , 607 A.2d 537, 542-45 (1992)), we stated as follows: “From the standpoint of a strict application of the American rule, there is no logical reason why the successful plaintiff’s action on a liability insurance policy for breach of a promise to defend, or to pay the cost of defense, should include counsel fees in prosecuting the breach of contract action, when successful plaintiffs’ actions for other breaches of insurance contracts, or for breaches of other contracts, | 2 | 3 |
Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2008In Bausch & Lomb, 355 Md. 566, 591-92 , 735 A.2d 1081, 1095 (1999) (quoting Collier v. MD-Individual Practice, 327 Md. 1, 16-17 , 607 A.2d 537, 542-45 (1992)), we stated as follows: “From the standpoint of a strict application of the American rule, there is no logical reason why the successful plaintiff’s action on a liability insurance policy for breach of a promise to defend, or to pay the cost of defense, should include counsel fees in prosecuting the breach of contract action, when successful plaintiffs’ actions for other breaches of insurance contracts, or for breaches of other contracts, 2008In Bausch & Lomb, 355 Md. 566, 591-92 , 735 A.2d 1081, 1095 (1999) (quoting Collier v. MD-Individual Practice, 327 Md. 1, 16-17 , 607 A.2d 537, 542-45 (1992)), we stated as follows: “From the standpoint of a strict application of the American rule, there is no logical reason why the successful plaintiff’s action on a liability insurance policy for breach of a promise to defend, or to pay the cost of defense, should include counsel fees in prosecuting the breach of contract action, when successful plaintiffs’ actions for other breaches of insurance contracts, or for breaches of other contracts, | 2 | 2 |
Mesmer v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fundgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Mesmer v. M.A.I.F., 353 Md. 241, 264 , 725 A.2d 1053, 1064 (1999) (‘damages for breach of the contractual duty to defend [the insured against liability claims] are limited to the insured’s expenses, including attorney fees, in defending the underlying tort action, as well as the insured’s expenses and attorney fees in a separate contract or declaratory judgment action if such action is filed [by the insured] to establish .that there exists a duty to defend’).... ‘From the standpoint of a strict application of the American rule, there is no logical reason why the successful plaintiff 2002See, e.g., Mesmer v. M.A.I.F., 353 Md. 241, 264 , 725 A.2d 1053, 1064 (1999) (‘damages for breach of the contractual duty to defend [the insured against liability claims] are limited to the insured’s expenses, including attorney fees, in defending the underlying tort action, as well as the insured’s expenses and attorney fees in a separate contract or declaratory judgment action if such action is filed [by the insured] to establish .that there exists a duty to defend’).... ‘From the standpoint of a strict application of the American rule, there is no logical reason why the successful plaintiff | 1 | 1 |
Hirst v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurancegreen2 sentences1999Co., 106 Idaho 792, 799 , 683 P.2d 440, 447 (1984) ("We decline to adopt .the Illinois rule” which “holds that where the insurer violates its duty to defend, the insurer is estopped to deny coverage” and is liable for "the amount recovered from the insured....” Rather, the damages for breach of the duty to defend are "the attorney fees and costs incurred by” the insured); Gordon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, 436 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 601 , 285 N.E.2d 849, 854 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 931 , 93 S.Ct. 1374 , 35 L.E.2d 593 (1973) ("For a breach of the obligation to defend, the 1999Co., 106 Idaho 792, 799 , 683 P.2d 440, 447 (1984) ("We decline to adopt .the Illinois rule” which “holds that where the insurer violates its duty to defend, the insurer is estopped to deny coverage” and is liable for "the amount recovered from the insured....” Rather, the damages for breach of the duty to defend are "the attorney fees and costs incurred by” the insured); Gordon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, 436 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 601 , 285 N.E.2d 849, 854 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 931 , 93 S.Ct. 1374 , 35 L.E.2d 593 (1973) ("For a breach of the obligation to defend, the | 1 | 1 |
Gedeon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences1999Co., 410 Pa. 55, 59-60 , 188 A.2d 320, 322 (1963) (“the recovery for breach of the covenant to defend will ordinarily be the cost of hiring substitute counsel and other costs of the defense.” In seeking the amount of an excess judgment, the insured "failfs] to distinguish between the insurer’s breach of its duty to defend, i.e. refusal to defend, and breach of its duty to defend with due care, i.e. mishandling of the claim”); Greer v. *266 Northwestern National Ins. 1999Co., 410 Pa. 55, 59-60 , 188 A.2d 320, 322 (1963) (“the recovery for breach of the covenant to defend will ordinarily be the cost of hiring substitute counsel and other costs of the defense.” In seeking the amount of an excess judgment, the insured "failfs] to distinguish between the insurer’s breach of its duty to defend, i.e. refusal to defend, and breach of its duty to defend with due care, i.e. mishandling of the claim”); Greer v. *266 Northwestern National Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences1999Co., 106 Idaho 792, 799 , 683 P.2d 440, 447 (1984) ("We decline to adopt .the Illinois rule” which “holds that where the insurer violates its duty to defend, the insurer is estopped to deny coverage” and is liable for "the amount recovered from the insured....” Rather, the damages for breach of the duty to defend are "the attorney fees and costs incurred by” the insured); Gordon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, 436 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 601 , 285 N.E.2d 849, 854 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 931 , 93 S.Ct. 1374 , 35 L.E.2d 593 (1973) ("For a breach of the obligation to defend, the 1999Co., 106 Idaho 792, 799 , 683 P.2d 440, 447 (1984) ("We decline to adopt .the Illinois rule” which “holds that where the insurer violates its duty to defend, the insurer is estopped to deny coverage” and is liable for "the amount recovered from the insured....” Rather, the damages for breach of the duty to defend are "the attorney fees and costs incurred by” the insured); Gordon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, 436 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 601 , 285 N.E.2d 849, 854 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 931 , 93 S.Ct. 1374 , 35 L.E.2d 593 (1973) ("For a breach of the obligation to defend, the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Continental Casualty Co. v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences2019For that reason, the insurer was responsible “for the cost of defense attributable to” covered counts, rather than “the reasonable cost of defending the entire . . . suit.” Id. 2019For that reason, the insurer was responsible “for the cost of defense attributable to” covered counts, rather than “the reasonable cost of defending the entire . . . suit.” Id. | 4 | 1992–2019 |
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 1089 . 2019Id. at 1089 . | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Cave v. Elliott
green
2 sentences2015Otherwise, she, rather than the Department would, “bear the cost of that violation of rights.” She relies heavily on the case of Cave v. Elliott, 190 Md.App. 65 , 988 A.2d 1 (2010). 2015Otherwise, she, rather than the Department would, “bear the cost of that violation of rights.” She relies heavily on the case of Cave v. Elliott, 190 Md.App. 65 , 988 A.2d 1 (2010). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Moffitt v. RESIDENTIAL FUNDING
green
1 sentence2009The Board noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, but before that court could consider the case, we issued a writ of certiorari on our own initiative, Board of Educ. v. Horace Mann, 406 Md. 192 , 957 A.2d 999 (2008). 5 II. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bell v. Bell
green
1 sentence2009The Board noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, but before that court could consider the case, we issued a writ of certiorari on our own initiative, Board of Educ. v. Horace Mann, 406 Md. 192 , 957 A.2d 999 (2008). 5 II. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Inhabitants of Westfield v. Mayo
green
1 sentence2006The discussion by the Massachusetts court suggested that, if a defendant is compelled to defend an action based solely on the misfeasance of another, the defendant may be able to recover the cost of defense. 122 Mass. at 105-09 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
James v. Hyatt Corp. of Delaware
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Fisher v. Graves
green
1 sentence1999Co., 106 Idaho 792, 799 , 683 P.2d 440, 447 (1984) ("We decline to adopt .the Illinois rule” which “holds that where the insurer violates its duty to defend, the insurer is estopped to deny coverage” and is liable for "the amount recovered from the insured....” Rather, the damages for breach of the duty to defend are "the attorney fees and costs incurred by” the insured); Gordon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, 436 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 601 , 285 N.E.2d 849, 854 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 931 , 93 S.Ct. 1374 , 35 L.E.2d 593 (1973) ("For a breach of the obligation to defend, the | 1 | 1999–1999 |
J. M. Wood Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence1999Co., 106 Idaho 792, 799 , 683 P.2d 440, 447 (1984) ("We decline to adopt .the Illinois rule” which “holds that where the insurer violates its duty to defend, the insurer is estopped to deny coverage” and is liable for "the amount recovered from the insured....” Rather, the damages for breach of the duty to defend are "the attorney fees and costs incurred by” the insured); Gordon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, 436 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 601 , 285 N.E.2d 849, 854 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 931 , 93 S.Ct. 1374 , 35 L.E.2d 593 (1973) ("For a breach of the obligation to defend, the | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Brohawn v. Transamerica Insurance
green
2 sentences1995Id. at 411-12 , 347 A.2d 842 . 1995Id. at 411-12 , 347 A.2d 842 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Hodor
neutral
1 sentence1981Co. v. Hodor, 200 So.2d 205 (Fla. App. 1967), the rationale behind these authorities is that an insurer must bear the entire cost of defense only when there is no reasonable means of prorating the costs of defense between excluded and uncovered items. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
EMPLOYERS'FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Beals
green
2 sentences1975The insurer must either provide an independent attorney to represent the insured, or pay for the cost of defense incurred by the insured hiring an attorney of his choice.” In Employers’ Fire Insurance Company v. Beals, supra, 240 A. 2d 397 , the insured minor was alleged to have either “negligently and carelessly, or willfully and maliciously” struck a schoolmate in the eye with a pencil. 1975The insurer must either provide an independent attorney to represent the insured, or pay for the cost of defense incurred by the insured hiring an attorney of his choice.” In Employers’ Fire Insurance Company v. Beals, supra, 240 A. 2d 397 , the insured minor was alleged to have either “negligently and carelessly, or willfully and maliciously” struck a schoolmate in the eye with a pencil. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.