rejecting the Upland "minority view” and observing that “this view has typically appeared in situations where the defendant evidently lacked any other insurance.”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting the Upland "minority view” and observing that “this view has typically appeared in situations where the defendant evidently lacked any other insurance.”
- in which the court held that, under Maryland law, the automobile exclusion in the insured's general liability policy excluded a claim for negligent entrustment of a truck to one of the insured's employees
- applying Maryland law, court held that exclusion covers negligent entrustment of a vehicle
- declining to certify questions of law where “the posture of the ease mandates prompt resolution of [the] issue”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur only in the judgment in this case. In particular, because I find no significant issue on “case or controversy” or “ripeness,” see, e.g., ACandS, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 666 F.2d 819 , 822-23 *678 (3d Cir.1981), I do not subscribe to any of the discussion or opinions expressed in Part II of Judge Williams’ opinion.