Opinion ID: 2341546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Liability of Aetna

Text: Aetna here appears to rely wholly on the defenses available to Medley. A surety is prima facie bound by a judgment or decree against its principal. Watkins v. State, 162 Md. 609, 161 A. 173 [1932]. Aetna offered no offsetting evidence. In the trial court Aetna suggested  but did not here brief or argue the point  that the terms of its bond did not protect against mere neglect by the receiver. The bond provided, among other things, that Medley shall duly account for what shall come into his hands    and faithfully perform all his duties as such receiver. The language clearly is susceptible to an interpretation that it was intended to protect creditors from improvident distribution of assets. In Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. Mattingly Lumber Co., 176 Md. 217, 222, 4 A.2d 447, 450 [1939], we adopted the language of 8 Am. Jur. [Bonds] 723: With respect to the construction of fidelity bonds, it has been repeatedly held that where the instrument is reasonably susceptible of two constructions, one favorable to the insured, and one favorable to the insurer, that construction will be adopted which favors the liability of the insurer for the act or default in question. Aetna, like Medley, is liable to Coppage.