BGE Home Products & Services, Inc. v. Owens, 377 Md. 236

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that an approved motor-vehicle self-insurer has a duty to defend comparable to that of a basic motor-vehicle liability insurer. It further held that, because BGE's self-insurance documents contained no permissive-user clause, BGE could not disclaim indemnity coverage on the ground that its employee operated the vehicle outside the scope of permission. The court affirmed the Circuit Court for Carroll County's declaratory judgment.

Holdings

1. An approved self-insurer under Maryland's compulsory motor-vehicle insurance laws has a duty to defend equivalent to the duty imposed by a basic motor-vehicle liability insurance policy, even when the self-insurance documents do not expressly contain a duty-to-defend provision.
2. A court may not imply a permissive-user, scope-of-permission, exclusion, restriction, or limitation that the self-insurer did not include in its self-insurance application or other self-insurance documents.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Maryland's approved motor-vehicle self-insurance alternative includes a duty to defend equivalent to the duty imposed by a basic motor-vehicle liability insurance policy.
2. Whether a court may imply a permissive-user or scope-of-permission exclusion in approved self-insurance documents that contain no such clause.
3. Whether BGE could disclaim indemnity coverage on the ground that Owens was operating the vehicle outside the scope of permission.

Disposition

affirmed