United Services Automobile Association v. Riley, 393 Md. 55

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed whether evidence created a genuine dispute regarding when children sustained bodily injuries from lead-paint exposure and whether multiple insurance policies provided separate per-occurrence limits. The court held that summary judgment was improper on the timing of the injuries and rejected the insurer's argument that the policies collectively imposed a single per-occurrence limit when the injuries spanned multiple policy periods. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was improper because the evidence, including the expert's testimony and evidence of ongoing lead exposure, created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the children suffered bodily injury during the first two policy periods.
2. The policies were ambiguous as to whether the limit of liability applied once across all implicated policies or separately under each policy covering a period during which bodily injury occurred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the ground that the respondents could not prove that the Carpenter children suffered bodily injuries during the first two USAA policy periods.
2. Whether the limit-of-liability provision in each of four liability policies limited USAA's coverage to a single per-occurrence limit when bodily injury spanned more than one policy period.

Disposition

affirmed