Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Donohue v. Md. Cas. Co., 363 F.2d 442 (4th Cir. 1966)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-06-20
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. These two cases' present a common question: Whether a workmen’s compensation insurance carrier in Maryland is subject to a common law tort liability for the fatal injury of a workman allegedly resulting from a remediable hazard which should have been, but was not, discovered during the carrier’s safety inspections. The District Court construed Art. 101 of the Annotated Code of Maryland as extending the employer’s immunity to its insurer, so that the insurer’s liabilities are limited to payment of the workmen’s compensation benefits due under the statute. With that construction we agree, for reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court. Donohue v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
DONOHUE v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY,363 F.2d 442(4th Cir. 1966)
Mildred Naomi DONOHUE and Janet Lee Donohue, Joyce Ann Donohue and James
Edward Donohue, Appellants, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee. Rosa
Lee GRUBB and Deborah Leslie Frieze, an infant, by her next friend Rosa
Lee Grubb and Rosa Lee Grubb, Administratrix of the Estate of William
Edwin Grubb, deceased, Appellants, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee.
Nos. 10518, 10519.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued June 2, 1966.
Decided June 20, 1966.
Bernard M. Goldstein, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.

Wm. B. Somerville, Baltimore, Md. (George Beall, and Smith, Somerville Case, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee, Maryland Cas. Co.

Michael P. Crocker, Baltimore, Md. (Dewey B. Morris, and Piper Marbury, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee, The Travelers Ins. Co.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge, and HEMPHILL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
These two cases present a common question: Whether a workmen's compensation insurance carrier in Maryland is subject to a common law tort liability for the fatal injury of a workman allegedly resulting from a remediable hazard which should have been, but was not, discovered during the carrier's safety inspections. The District Court construed Art. 101 of the Annotated Code of Maryland as extending the employer's immunity to its insurer, so that the insurer's liabilities are limited to payment of the workmen's compensation benefits due under the statute.

With that construction we agree, for reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court. Donohue v. Maryland Cas. Co., D.Md.,248 F. Supp. 588.
Affirmed.Page 443
Page 504