TIG Insurance v. Monongahela Power Co.

³⁷³ McDonald, j. We issued a writ of certiorari in this case to review a substantive choice-of-law question concerning the interpretation of insurance policies that may cover asbestos-related liability. The question arose as a result of a lawsuit filed by a holding company, whose subsidiaries own power-generating facilities, 1 against multiple insurers regarding the terms of the liability policies the company purchased between 1970 and 1985. In the Circuit Court for Washington County the parties argued that the disposition of the issues raised during the lawsuit turned on whether New York or Pennsylvania law applied to the interpretation of the policies.

After briefing and oral argument, the Circuit Court ruled in favor of the holding company that Pennsylvania law applied to all policies at issue in the lawsuit. 2 One of the insurers, TIG Insurance Company (“TIG”), appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special Appeals held that the Circuit Court properly granted summary judgment on this issue because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that the insurance contracts at issue were made in Pennsylvania — as opposed to New York, as urged by the insurers — and that, therefore, Pennsylvania law governed the interpretation of the policies. 209 Md.App. 146 , 58 A.3d 497 (2012). We granted TIG’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review that decision. We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals and the arguments made by TIG to reverse it.

We adopt the well-reasoned opinion of the Court of Special Appeals with the exception of its two-paragraph discussion addressing TIG’s argument that the place of countersigning a policy determines the applicable state law. 3 See 209 Md.App. ³⁷⁴ at 165-66, 58 A.3d 497 . TIG’s argument concerning the countersignature provision was not preserved in the Circuit Court and the record was insufficiently developed on that issue. 4 Accordingly, we explicitly do not adopt the two paragraphs of the Court of Special Appeals’ opinion that discuss that issue, and we express no opinion as to the merits of the court’s analysis of that issue. 5 ³⁷⁵ Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals Affirmed. Costs to be Paid by Petitioner. 1 . The subsidiaries were also parties to the litigation.

For simplicity, we refer to Respondents collectively as the holding company. 2 . At a subsequent hearing during a bench trial, the Circuit Court extended its ruling that Pennsylvania law governed the interpretation of the policies specifically to TIG’s policies. 3 . TIG relied on a clause at the end of each of the policies in question which provided that "the