anti-assignment clause in Maryland

2025Health, 466 Md. at 393 (quoting Ocean Petroleum, Co. v. Yanek, 416 Md. 74, 86 (2010)).

2024Health, Inc. v. Johnson, 466 Md. 380, 393 (2019).

2024See Orkin v. Jacobson, 274 Md. 124, 130 (1975) (likening contract interpretation to statutory interpretation, including that a statute is to be read “so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase shall be rendered . . . meaningless”).

2024See Orkin v. Jacobson, 274 Md. 124, 130 (1975) (likening contract interpretation to statutory interpretation, including that a statute is to be read “so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase shall be rendered . . . meaningless”).

1990Quoting from Chief Justice Traynor’s opinion for the court in Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 344-45 , 182 P.2d 182, 188 (1947), we said that: “ ‘[I]f an assignment results merely from a change in the legal form of ownership of a business, its validity depends upon wheth *566 er it affects the interests of the parties protected by the nonassignability of the contract.’ ” 248 Md. at 104 , 234 A.2d at 879 (emphasis in original omitted).

1990Quoting from Chief Justice Traynor’s opinion for the court in Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 344-45 , 182 P.2d 182, 188 (1947), we said that: “ ‘[I]f an assignment results merely from a change in the legal form of ownership of a business, its validity depends upon wheth *566 er it affects the interests of the parties protected by the nonassignability of the contract.’ ” 248 Md. at 104 , 234 A.2d at 879 (emphasis in original omitted).

2025Health, 466 Md. at 393 (quoting Ocean Petroleum, Co. v. Yanek, 416 Md. 74, 86 (2010)).

2025The same principle was also confirmed in State of Maryland, Central Collection Unit v. Columbia Medical Plan, where we held that an insured made a valid assignment of her right to hospital benefits under her health insurance policy. 300 Md. 318, 331-32 (1984).

1999Co., 285 Md. 548, 553 , 403 A.2d 1229, 1232 (1979). 2 The District Court entered judgment in favor of GEICO, holding that “the anti-assignment clause between Brenda Smith and [GEICO] was valid, enforceable and not waived.” That court reasoned “that Brenda Smith had no contractual right to assign any interest she had under her policy to anyone else without GEICO’s consent.

1999Co., 285 Md. 548, 553 , 403 A.2d 1229, 1232 (1979). 2 The District Court entered judgment in favor of GEICO, holding that “the anti-assignment clause between Brenda Smith and [GEICO] was valid, enforceable and not waived.” That court reasoned “that Brenda Smith had no contractual right to assign any interest she had under her policy to anyone else without GEICO’s consent.

1990Quoting from Chief Justice Traynor’s opinion for the court in Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 344-45 , 182 P.2d 182, 188 (1947), we said that: “ ‘[I]f an assignment results merely from a change in the legal form of ownership of a business, its validity depends upon wheth *566 er it affects the interests of the parties protected by the nonassignability of the contract.’ ” 248 Md. at 104 , 234 A.2d at 879 (emphasis in original omitted).

1990Quoting from Chief Justice Traynor’s opinion for the court in Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 344-45 , 182 P.2d 182, 188 (1947), we said that: “ ‘[I]f an assignment results merely from a change in the legal form of ownership of a business, its validity depends upon wheth *566 er it affects the interests of the parties protected by the nonassignability of the contract.’ ” 248 Md. at 104 , 234 A.2d at 879 (emphasis in original omitted).