Granted August 14, 2013

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. and Magothy River Assoc., Inc. v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC, et al. - Case No. 77, September Term, 2013

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did the Board of Appeals correctly determine that CBF lacked standing to participate in the variance proceedings? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the widely held judicial rule that the standing of similar parties will not be challenged if at least one party has standing does not apply in administrative proceedings? 3) Did CSA correctly refuse to determine whether Anne Arundel County law violates Md. Ann. Code Article 25A, § 5(U)? 4) Did the Board of Appeals correctly determine that Respondents have met their burden of proof and persuasion on the Critical Area variance standards of self-created hardship and minimum variance necessary to afford relief? 5) Was it proper for the Board of Appeals to grant a blanket variance of 3,325 sq. ft., and not provide a specific amount of impervious square footage for each variance requested? 6) Did CSA apply an incorrect standard with respect to whether the variance granted by the Board of Appeals was the minimum necessary to afford relief?

Christopher D. Hamilton v. Benjamin Kirson, et ux. - Case No. 78, September Term, 2013

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err by refusing to allow plaintiff’s expert witnesses to testify that the defendant’s property was a substantial contributing cause to plaintiff’s injurious lead exposure on the grounds that they did not sufficiently rule out other potential sources of lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence as to causation? 3) Is a Dow analysis applicable to a lead paint claim involving possible exposure at multiple properties?

David Springer v. Erie Insurance Exchange - Case No. 79, September Term, 2013

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Can the “business pursuits” exclusion in an insurance policy relieve an insurer of its duty to provide a defense to its insured when the claims alleged were not connected to the insured’s alleged business pursuits, and when the evidence about the insured’s business activity demonstrated that the insured had not engaged in such activity for approximately two years? 2) Can the “expected or intended” exclusion in an insurance policy relieve an insurer of its duty to provide a defense to its insured, when the claims against the insured are based on reckless conduct and not solely intentional conduct?

James Townsend v. Midland Funding - Case No. 76, September Term, 2013

Issue – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Did the trial court err by allowing a debt buyer to prove its case against a debtor by submitting unauthenticated documents and an affidavit of an individual not employed by the original creditor given that Rule 3-306 provides that a debt buyer must prove its case with evidence that would pass muster under the business records exception to the hearsay rule?

Mary Zook v. Susan Pesce - Case No. 75, September Term, 2013

Issue – Estates And Trusts – Does the testamentary exception to the attorney client privilege exist in Maryland?