Zurich American Insurance v. Uninsured Employers' Fund
13 A.3d 98
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Zurich issued a Delaware policy to A & B Enterprises for workers' compensation and employers liability with a residual market limited other states endorsement (Endorsement).
- A & B subcontracted work to WMT Contracting, with employees including Mr. Young, a Delaware resident, who worked near Salisbury, Maryland.
- Mr. Young was injured while working on a Maryland site; he had filed workers' comp claims in Delaware (uninsured) and Maryland (via WMT as statutory employer).
- MD Workers' Compensation Commission found A & B was the statutory employer, WMT uninsured, and A & B covered by the Policy under the Endorsement, creating coverage for Maryland claim.
- Zurich challenged in circuit court; the court granted summary judgment for UEF, relying on Kacur; the Maryland Court of Special Appeals initially withdrew then affirmed the judgment upon reconsideration.
- The central issue is whether the Endorsement provides coverage for Mr. Young’s Maryland injury given the facts and Maryland law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Endorsement provide coverage for Maryland injuries when hired in Delaware and temporarily working in Maryland? | UEF argues disjunctive 'or' yields coverage if any subpart (i)-(iii) is met and no separate Maryland coverage existed. | Zurich maintains all subparts must be satisfied and separate Maryland coverage or self-insurance were required; Delaware reciprocity issues irrelevant. | Yes, Endorsement provides coverage for temporary Maryland work. |
| Is separate Maryland workers' compensation coverage required under A.1.b when Maryland operations are temporary? | UEF contends no separate Maryland coverage needed because subparts (i) or (iii) not satisfied, and temporary work suffices. | Zurich argues Maryland requires separate coverage; A.1.b(ii) not satisfied if Maryland law requires separate coverage. | No separate Maryland coverage required; Endorsement covers temporary Maryland work. |
| Is Mr. Young a temporary or casual employee under Maryland law for purposes of LE 9-203(b)? | UEF contends temporary status supports Endorsement; the employee is not casual. | Zurich argues more permanent Maryland employment or non-temporary status may apply. | Mr. Young’s work in Maryland was temporary; Endorsement applies. |
| Does the Kacur framework apply to determine coverage given a choice of fora in this case? | UEF relies on Kacur to allow coverage where claimant could pursue in Maryland or Delaware; Delaware reciprocity not necessary. | Zurich contends Kacur is inapplicable because Delaware did not recognize statutory employer at injury time and Endorsement terms control. | Kacur applies, but Endorsement analysis also supports coverage; judgment affirmed even without relying solely on Kacur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kacur v. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co., 253 Md. 500 (Md. 1969) (choice of fora can govern insurer liability)
- Smigelski v. Potomac Ins. Co. of Illinois, 403 Md. 55 (Md. 2008) (ends discussion of 'separate' coverage and casual employee concepts)
- Granite State Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 191 Md. App. 548 (Md. 2010) (endorsement interpretation in multi-state context)
- Injured Workers' Fund v. Orient Express Delivery Serv., 190 Md. App. 438 (Md. 2010) (summary judgment deference and policy interpretation principles)
- Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Maryland Yacht Club, Inc., 129 Md. App. 455 (Md. 1999) (contract interpretation guiding insurance policy analysis)