Court Opinion

ID: 9915601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 21:01:09.874323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:57.739934
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621     Doc: 38            Filed: 01/04/2024   Pg: 1 of 17

                                               PUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-1621

        JEREMY W. SCHULMAN,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

        v.

        AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY; ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY
        INSURANCE COMPANY; PROSIGHT SYNDICATE 1110 AT LLOYD’S,

                    Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:21−cv−01252−LKG)

        Argued: October 26, 2023                                        Decided: January 4, 2024

        Before WYNN, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the opinion, in which Judge Harris and
        Judge Benjamin joined.

        ARGUED: Jillian M. Raines, COHEN ZIFFER FRENCHMAN & MCKENNA LLP,
        New York, New York, for Appellant. Charles Collins Lemley, WILEY REIN, LLP,
        Washington, D.C.; Marc Rechnic Kamin, STEWART SMITH, West Conshohocken,
        Pennsylvania, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey M. Schwaber, Deanna L. Peters, STEIN
        SPERLING BENNETT DE JONG DRISCOLL PC, Rockville, Maryland; Robin L. Cohen,
        COHEN ZIFFER FRENCHMAN & MCKENNA LLP, New York, New York, for
        Appellant. John J. Murphy, WALKER, MURPHY & NELSON, LLP, Rockville,
        Maryland, for Appellee ProSight Syndicate 1110 at Lloyd’s. Gary P. Seligman, WILEY
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621   Doc: 38      Filed: 01/04/2024   Pg: 2 of 17

        REIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees AXIS Surplus Insurance Company and
        Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company.

                                              2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621        Doc: 38          Filed: 01/04/2024     Pg: 3 of 17

        WYNN, Circuit Judge:

               Plaintiff Jeremy Schulman appeals from the district court’s decision granting

        summary judgment to Defendants AXIS Surplus Insurance Company (“AXIS”),

        Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company (“Endurance”), and Prosight

        Syndicate 1110 at Lloyd’s (“Prosight”) (collectively, “the Carriers”). Schulman sued the

        Carriers for breach of contract, detrimental reliance, and lack of good faith, claiming that

        they wrongfully denied his claim for coverage under his law firm’s professional liability

        insurance policy.

               Because we hold that Schulman is not entitled to coverage under his professional

        liability insurance policy, that the insurers never made a clear and definite promise to cover

        the expenses over which Schulman has sued, and that his lack-of-good-faith claim at a

        minimum requires him to show that he was entitled to coverage, we affirm the district

        court’s grant of summary judgment on all claims.

                                                       I.

                                                       A.

              Until 2017, Schulman was an equity shareholder at the Maryland law firm Shulman,

        Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker (“the Law Firm”). During Schulman’s tenure at the Law

        Firm, the Law Firm purchased a $20,000,000 professional liability insurance policy from

        the Carriers that covered the policy period spanning from August 22, 2016, to August 22,

        2017. 1 AXIS and Endurance (“the Primary Carriers”) each insured fifty percent of the first

               1
                   Schulman does not dispute that this is the relevant policy.

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621         Doc: 38          Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 4 of 17

        $10,000,000 of liability per claim and in the aggregate. And Prosight provided $10,000,000

        in excess limits of liability per claim and in the aggregate. The AXIS, Endurance, and

        Prosight Policies (collectively, “the Policy”) contain identical terms.

              The Policy provides that the Carriers will “pay on behalf of the Insureds all Loss . . .

        resulting from Claims for Wrongful Acts committed before the expiration of the Policy

        Period that are first made against any Insured during the Policy Period.” J.A. 212. 2 The

        parties do not dispute that Schulman is an Insured within the meaning of the Policy.

              The Policy defines a Claim as:

                         1. any of the following:
                              a. a written demand against any Insured for monetary
                                   or non-monetary relief;
                              b. a civil proceeding against any Insured commenced
                                   by the service of a complaint or similar pleading;
                              c. a written demand for arbitration or mediation;
                              d. a formal civil administrative or civil regulatory
                                   proceeding against any Insured, including, but not
                                   limited to, a Disciplinary Proceeding, commenced
                                   by the filing of a notice or charges or similar
                                   document or by the entry of a formal order of
                                   investigation or similar document;
                         2. a written request received by an Insured to toll or waive a
                            statute of limitations relating to a matter described in
                            subparagraph 1. above.

        J.A. 213.

                                                         B.

               On January 27, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice served the Law Firm with a

        grand jury subpoena in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation. The subpoena

               2
                   Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.

                                                         4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621        Doc: 38       Filed: 01/04/2024     Pg: 5 of 17

        sought production of documents relating to the Law Firm’s representation of various

        entities and individuals, including the Federal Government of Somalia, the Transitional

        Federal Government of Somalia, the Central Bank of Somalia, and the Somali Ministry of

        Finance.

               On January 31, 2017, the Law Firm notified the Carriers of the subpoena as a

        potentially covered Claim. Three days later, the Carriers informed the Law Firm that the

        Department of Justice subpoena did not constitute a Claim and therefore did not trigger the

        Policy’s coverage.

               After further communication, the Carriers sent the Law Firm a letter on April 5,

        2017. The letter stated that the Carriers understood that Schulman had retained Akin Gump

        Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (“Akin Gump”) “to assist in responding to the subpoena.” J.A.

        385 (emphasis added). While the Carriers noted that they continued to “dispute that there

        is a duty to indemnify [the Law Firm] for defense costs incurred with respect to the

        [Department of Justice]’s subpoena,” they stated that they were “willing to resolve” the

        coverage dispute by paying “70% of defense fees incurred with respect to” Akin Gump.

        J.A. 386.

              On May 20, 2017, Schulman emailed the Primary Carriers and explained that the

        Law Firm had advised him that the Carriers had “agreed to reimburse [him] for ‘70% of

        defense fees incurred with respect to Akin Gump,’ which is the law firm [he] engaged to

        represent [him] in connection with the investigation and any related proceedings.” J.A.

        297. Schulman further noted that he had not been provided with any written documentation

        regarding the Carriers’ agreement to reimburse defense fees and asked the Primary Carriers

                                                    5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621      Doc: 38         Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 6 of 17

        to “treat this email as [his] effort to establish . . . confirmation of the payment agreement

        referenced above.” J.A. 297–98.

               On June 22, 2017, the Primary Carriers replied to Schulman’s email with a letter

        (“the June 22 letter”). They reiterated their original position that “no Claim for a Wrongful

        Act had been made within the meaning of the policy,” then stated that “[a] compromise

        was reached with the insured [Law F]irm on these issues, whereby [the Carriers] have

        agreed to cover 70% of defense fees and 100% of costs incurred with respect to this matter

        under a reservation of rights.” J.A. 300. While the Primary Carriers did not define “this

        matter,” they did begin their letter by stating that they were responding to Schulman’s email

        “regarding the captioned matter involving a subpoena from the U.S. Department of

        Justice.” Id.

               Beginning in May 2017, Akin Gump submitted invoices to the Primary Carriers and

        eventually received more than $700,000 in payment on those invoices.

               On December 2, 2020, a grand jury in the District of Maryland returned an

        indictment charging Schulman with mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering,

        conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money

        laundering (“the Indictment”). In short, the Indictment alleged that Schulman had

        conspired with various Somali entities and individuals to recover millions of dollars in

        frozen Somali assets. Schulman allegedly executed the fraud by representing to financial

        institutions, through various forged documents, that he was authorized to take control of

        the Somali assets on behalf of the Law Firm’s clients. The Indictment further alleged that

        Schulman and the Law Firm retained a portion of the fraudulently obtained assets. The

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621       Doc: 38         Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 7 of 17

        Indictment warned that the government would “seek forfeiture as part of any sentence . . .

        in the event of [Schulman’s] conviction of any of the offenses” contained in the Indictment

        (the “forfeiture allegation”). J.A. 293.

               Later that month, the Primary Carriers stopped paying the invoices from Akin

        Gump. Three months later, on March 12, 2021, the Primary Carriers sent letters to Akin

        Gump denying coverage for expenses related to the Indictment and stating that the

        Indictment does not constitute a “Claim as defined by the Policy, which is limited in

        pertinent part to civil rather than criminal proceedings.” J.A. 314.

                                                      C.

               On April 6, 2021, Schulman filed suit against the Carriers in Maryland state court.

        The Carriers subsequently removed the suit to federal district court based on diversity

        jurisdiction. Schulman’s complaint asserted claims for breach of contract against the

        Primary Carriers based on the Policy’s language (Count I); breach of contract against the

        Primary Carriers based on the language of the June 22 letter (Count II); anticipatory breach

        of contract against all Carriers based on the Policy’s language (Count III); declaratory relief

        against all Carriers based on the Policy’s language (Count IV); detrimental reliance against

        the Primary Carriers based on the June 22 letter (Count V); and lack of good faith against

        the Primary Carriers based on Maryland “statutory, regulatory and common law” (Count

        VI). J.A. 33.

               The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied

        Schulman’s motion for partial summary judgment, granted the Carriers’ motion for

        summary judgment, and dismissed the action.

                                                      7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621         Doc: 38        Filed: 01/04/2024     Pg: 8 of 17

               In so doing, the district court granted summary judgment to the Carriers on 1)

        Counts I, III, and IV because it found that the Indictment did not constitute a Claim under

        the language of the Policy; 2) Count II because it found that, even if the June 22 letter

        constituted a contract, it did not obligate the Primary Carriers to pay defense fees associated

        with the Indictment; 3) Count V because it found that the June 22 letter did not create a

        promise from the Primary Carriers to Schulman that they would pay his defense fees

        associated with the Indictment and that, even if they had made such a promise, Schulman

        could not prove he relied on the promise; and 4) Count VI because it found that Maryland

        state law does not recognize the tort of lack of good faith with regard to an insurance

        carrier’s decision to deny coverage.

               Schulman timely appealed, challenging the district court’s decision as to each of his

        claims. 3

                                                      II.

               We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all

        facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Millennium Inorganic

        Chems. Ltd. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 744 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).

                                                      A.

               We first address Schulman’s argument that the Indictment qualifies as a Claim

        under the Policy. “Because this case is in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, we

        follow state law in interpreting the insurance contract at issue.” Brown Goldstein Levy LLP

               3
                    We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

                                                       8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621       Doc: 38          Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 9 of 17

        v. Fed. Ins. Co., 68 F.4th 169, 174 (4th Cir. 2023). And because the parties do not dispute

        that Maryland law governs, we look to how Maryland courts would interpret the Policy.

        See Minnieland Priv. Day Sch., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co., 913

        F.3d 409, 415 n.4 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that where the parties agree that a certain State’s

        law applies, “we need not inquire further into the choice-of-law question[]”).

               In Maryland, an insurance policy is construed “according to contract principles.”

        Md. Cas. Co. v. Blackstone Int’l Ltd., 114 A.3d 676, 681 (Md. 2015). “When the clear

        language of a contract is unambiguous, the court will give effect to its plain, ordinary, and

        usual meaning, taking into account the context in which it is used.” Id. (quoting Sy-Lene of

        Wash., Inc. v. Starwood Urb. Retail II, LLC, 829 A.2d 540, 546 (Md. 2003)). If a policy is

        ambiguous, we will construe the ambiguity against the drafter (here, the Carriers). See

        Megonnell v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 796 A.2d 758, 772 (Md. 2002).

               As stated earlier, the Indictment indicated that the government would “seek

        forfeiture as part of any sentence . . . .” J.A. 293. The parties dispute whether that forfeiture

        allegation qualifies as a “written demand against any Insured for monetary or non-

        monetary relief” under the Policy’s definition of a Claim, such that the Policy covers

        Schulman’s legal fees related to the forfeiture allegation. See J.A. 213 (emphasis added).

               Because no Maryland case law provides a definitive definition of a “demand,” we

        look to the dictionary definition of the term. See Credible Behav. Health, Inc. v. Johnson,

        220 A.3d 303, 311 (Md. 2019) (“Traditionally, to supply contractual language with its

        ordinary and accepted meanings, this Court consults the dictionary definition of such

        terms.” (cleaned up) (quoting Pac. Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 488 A.2d 486,

                                                       9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621       Doc: 38          Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 10 of 17

        489 (Md. 1985))). The dictionary Schulman cites in his brief defines a “demand” as

        “something claimed as due or owed.” Demand, Merriam-Webster Dictionary,

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand            [https://perma.cc/M89C-UC4A].

        Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary defines the noun “demand” as “[t]he assertion of a legal

        or procedural right,” and defines the verb as “[t]o claim as one’s due; to require; to seek

        relief.” Demand, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Applying those definitions, we

        conclude that the Indictment is not a demand.

               The forfeiture allegation in the Indictment states that “notice is hereby given to the

        defendant that the United States will seek forfeiture as part of any sentence . . . in the event

        of the defendant’s conviction of any of the offenses.” J.A. 293 (emphasis added). The

        forfeiture allegation did not require Schulman to turn over any money or property to the

        government. It merely informed him that, if he was convicted in the future, the government

        would seek forfeiture of various money and property. At most, therefore, the forfeiture

        allegation is a notice that there will be a demand in the future. The ordinary meaning of

        “demand” does not encompass a notice that, on the condition a triggering event occurs,

        something will be demanded in the future.

               In support of his view to the contrary, Schulman cites various cases—none from

        Maryland—concluding that a subpoena sent in connection with a criminal proceeding

        constitutes a demand for relief. Opening Br. at 26–27 (collecting cases); see, e.g., Syracuse

        Univ. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 975 N.Y.S.2d 370, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.

        Mar. 7, 2013) (unpublished table decision) (“[G]overnment issued subpoenas and other

        document requests are demands for non-monetary relief under the plain policy language.”).

                                                      10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621      Doc: 38         Filed: 01/04/2024     Pg: 11 of 17

        He argues that if courts consider a subpoena connected to a criminal proceeding as a

        demand for relief, then an indictment must be a demand for relief as well.

               To be sure, in evaluating the Policy, a Maryland court might look to how courts in

        other jurisdictions have interpreted similar contracts. E.g., Jocelyn P. v. Joshua P., 302

        A.3d 1111, 1138 (Md. App. Ct. 2023) (finding an Illinois court’s contractual interpretation

        “helpful”). But even assuming Maryland courts would treat subpoenas as “demands” when

        interpreting contract language like the Policy’s, compliance with a subpoena requires some

        present action by the recipient. In contrast, there was no action Schulman needed to take to

        comply with the forfeiture allegation—he was merely informed of an action that he might

        need to take in the future. Cf. Brown Goldstein Levy, 68 F.4th at 176 (holding that a search

        warrant is not a demand because “the target of a warrant is ‘not asked to say or to do

        anything’ in response to the warrant” (quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 473

        (1976))). Therefore, even if a subpoena would qualify as a “demand” under the Policy, it

        does not follow that an indictment also qualifies.

               Schulman also argues that the Indictment is a demand because it serves the same

        notice-providing function as a demand. Citing the Second Circuit’s decision in Gil

        Enterprises, Inc. v. Delvy, 79 F.3d 241, 246 (2d Cir. 1996)—which interpreted New York

        law—he argues that the Indictment qualifies as a demand because it provides notice of the

        charges against him and that the Government plans to seek forfeiture if he is convicted. Gil

        Enterprises concluded that a civil demand informing the recipient of their “rights and

        obligations” and placing them “on notice that those legal obligations have been triggered”

        constituted a demand within the meaning of the contract at issue in that case. Id. In so

                                                    11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621      Doc: 38         Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 12 of 17

        holding, the Second Circuit noted that such notice is important because “[w]ithout notice,

        [a] demand would serve no purpose because it would fail to provide [the recipient] with

        the opportunity to cure any” alleged disputes. Id. (emphasis added).

               But the notice-providing function of a classic demand, such as a civil demand letter,

        reinforces that the Indictment does not qualify as a demand. The recipient of a civil demand

        can avoid litigation by satisfying the demand. See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85,

        94–95 (2013) (defendant mooted case by providing all relief sought and guaranteeing that

        “the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur”); 13B Charles A. Wright

        & Arthur Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3533.2 (3d ed. 2008 & Supp. 2023) (“Action

        by the defendant that simply accords all the relief demanded by the plaintiff may have the

        same effect as settlement or an offer of settlement. So long as nothing further would be

        ordered by the court, there is no point in proceeding to decide the merits.”). In contrast, a

        criminal defendant has no right to terminate a prosecution solely by returning the proceeds

        of their alleged crimes.

               Furthermore, while the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibit a court from

        entering a judgment of forfeiture unless the indictment or bill of information contained a

        notice of forfeiture like the one in the Indictment here, “[t]he indictment . . . need not

        identify the property subject to forfeiture or specify the amount of any forfeiture money

        judgment that the government seeks.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). In cases in which forfeiture

        is contested, the court must conduct a hearing—and the government must specify the

        property sought to be forfeited and prove its connection to the crimes of which a defendant

        was convicted—only after the verdict or finding of guilt. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). So,

                                                     12
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621      Doc: 38          Filed: 01/04/2024     Pg: 13 of 17

        while a forfeiture allegation in an indictment is a prerequisite to an order of forfeiture, it

        does not necessarily provide notice of the property to be forfeited and therefore does not

        serve the specific notice-providing function of a demand.

               Because the Indictment is not a “written demand . . . for monetary or non-monetary

        relief,” J.A. 213, and because it does not even arguably fall under one of the other

        enumerated subparts of the Policy’s definition of a Claim, we affirm the district court’s

        grant of summary judgment on Counts I, III, and V. 4

                                                     B.

               Schulman next argues that, even if the Policy did not obligate the Primary Carriers

        to pay defense fees associated with the Indictment, the June 22 letter did. In his view, the

        June 22 letter—which he refers to as the “Advancement Agreement”—was a binding

        contract that obligated the Primary Carriers to pay 70% of attorney’s fees and 100% of

        costs related to the Indictment. 5 Opening Br. at 44. We once again disagree.

               As with the Policy, we interpret the June 22 letter based on its plain language in

        accordance with Maryland law. See Md. Cas. Co., 114 A.3d at 681. Assuming, without

               4
                  Since we conclude that an Indictment is not a demand, we need not reach the
        parties’ arguments about whether the Policy’s definition of a Claim could ever encompass
        criminal proceedings.
               5
                 Because of the compromise between the Carriers and the Law Firm, the parties do
        not dispute coverage for expenses related to the subpoena. Schulman’s complaint alleges
        that the Primary Carriers ceased reimbursing his attorneys “with payment on prior months’
        invoices outstanding.” J.A. 21. We recognize that it is at least debatable whether fees
        incurred prior to the Indictment are incurred defending against the Indictment or the
        subpoena. But, on appeal, Schulman only advances arguments that he is entitled to
        coverage of all fees and expenses relating to the Indictment. “A party waives an argument

                                                     13
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621      Doc: 38          Filed: 01/04/2024     Pg: 14 of 17

        deciding, that the June 22 letter formed a binding contract between the Primary Carriers

        and Schulman, the plain language of the letter limits coverage to the subpoena. The first

        sentence of the June 22 letter specifies that it is a response “regarding the captioned matter

        involving a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice.” J.A. 300 (emphasis added).

        That language makes clear that any promises contained in the letter are limited to matters

        relating to the subpoena.

               To be sure, Schulman’s email, which prompted the June 22 letter, reflected his

        understanding that the Primary Carriers had agreed to pay 70% of Akin Gump’s fees and

        noted that he retained Akin Gump to “represent [him] in connection with the investigation

        and any related proceedings.” J.A. 297 (emphasis added). But his email sought

        clarification of a preexisting agreement. The June 22 letter supplied that clarification,

        stating that a “compromise was reached” to “cover 70% of defense fees and 100% of costs

        incurred with respect to this matter.” J.A. 300 (emphasis added). Since “this matter” refers

        to the language limiting the subject of the letter to the “matter involving a subpoena,” we

        cannot reasonably give it the broad reading that Schulman seeks. Accordingly, the July 22

        letter does not provide coverage for fees and expenses incurred defending the Indictment,

        and we therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Count II.

        by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—even if
        its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d
        307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Accordingly, Schulman has waived any claim in the
        alternative that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because he is entitled
        to coverage for fees incurred solely relating to the subpoena even if he is not entitled to
        coverage for fees incurred defending against the Indictment.

                                                     14
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621       Doc: 38         Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 15 of 17

                                                      C.

               Relatedly, Schulman argues that the June 22 letter created a promise to cover fees

        and costs related to the Indictment and that he reasonably relied on that promise to his

        detriment.

               Maryland requires a plaintiff to prove four elements to establish a detrimental-

        reliance claim: “1. a clear and definite promise; 2. where the promisor has a reasonable

        expectation that the offer will induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee; 3.

        which does induce actual and reasonable action or forbearance by the promisee; and 4.

        causes a detriment which can only be avoided by the enforcement of the promise.” Pavel

        Enters., Inc. v. A.S. Johnson Co., Inc., 674 A.2d 521, 532 (Md. 1996).

               In determining whether a party has provided a clear and definite promise, courts

        must make a “fact-specific judgment” about the contents of the alleged promise. Id. at 533.

        Since Schulman’s claim that the Primary Carriers made him a clear and definite promise

        rests on the contents of the June 22 letter, our determination again turns on the plain

        language of that letter. And because the plain language of the June 22 letter does not

        promise to cover anything besides fees and expenses related to the subpoena, Schulman’s

        detrimental-reliance claim fails without inquiry into the other elements. We therefore

        affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Count V.

                                                      D.

               We last address Schulman’s lack-of-good-faith claim, which he brought in relevant

        part under Maryland “statutory . . . and common law.” J.A. 33. On appeal, Schulman argues

        that the district court erred by 1) failing to analyze his statutory claim, and 2) finding that

                                                      15
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621      Doc: 38          Filed: 01/04/2024      Pg: 16 of 17

        no claim existed under Maryland common law. Neither source supports a cause of action

        in this case.

               First, Maryland statutory law provides a cause of action against insurance carriers

        for lack of good faith in denying coverage. 6 See Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1701. But

        “a plaintiff may only prevail on such a claim where the plaintiff proves that [he] was

        entitled to coverage under the policy.” Dominant Invs. 113, LLC v. U.S. Liab. Ins. Co., 247

        F. Supp. 3d 696, 704 (D. Md. 2017), aff’d, 707 F. App’x 155 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam);

        see also St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Am. Bank Holdings, Inc., 819 F.3d 728, 739 (4th Cir.

        2016) (“Section 3-1701(d)(1)(i) provides that the statutory claim for failure to act in good

        faith applies to civil actions in which the insured seeks a determination of whether coverage

        actually exists under an insurance policy, and § 3-1701(e) requires a finding ‘in favor of

        the insured’ on that coverage question.” (emphasis omitted) (citing Md. Code, Cts. & Jud.

        Proc. §§ 3-1701(d), 3-1701(e))). Because, as discussed above, Schulman was not entitled

        to coverage under the Policy, his statutory claim fails.

               Second, as to the common law, Maryland’s highest court has held that, “[s]ince the

        source of the duties to defend and to indemnify are entirely contractual, a liability insurer

               6
                  The statute “applies only to first-party claims under property and casualty
        insurance policies or individual disability insurance policies.” Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc.
        § 3-1701(b). But it incorporates a definition of casualty insurance that includes “insurance
        against any other kind of loss, damage, or liability that is properly a subject of insurance
        and not within any other kind of insurance described in this subsection.” Md. Code, Ins.
        § 1-101(i)(1)(iii). Professional liability insurance does not fall under any of the categories
        of insurance described in § 1-101, so it qualifies as a type of casualty insurance under
        Maryland law. Accordingly, § 3-1701 provides a cause of action against insurance carriers
        for lack of good faith in denying coverage on a professional liability insurance policy.

                                                     16
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1621      Doc: 38          Filed: 01/04/2024     Pg: 17 of 17

        breaches no tort duty when, upon learning of a claim, it erroneously denies coverage and

        refuses to undertake any defense against the claim.” Mesmer v. Md. Auto Ins. Fund, 725

        A.2d 1053, 1061 (Md. 1999). Because this dispute revolves around the Carriers’ denial of

        coverage, Maryland common law does not support Schulman’s lack-of-good-faith claim. 7

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Count VI

        because Schulman’s claim fails under both statutory and common law.

                                                     III.

               For the reasons detailed above, we affirm the district court’s decision granting

        summary judgment to the Carriers on each of Schulman’s claims.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

               7
                  While Schulman points out that Mesmer was decided eight years prior to the
        enactment of § 3-1701, he provides no argument that § 3-1701 changed the common law
        rule rather than adding an alternative statutory cause of action. “A party waives an
        argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—
        even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” Grayson O, 856 F.3d at 316 (cleaned up).
        To the extent Schulman was attempting to argue that the enactment of § 3-1701 modified
        the common law rule stated in Mesmer, we therefore consider that argument waived.

                                                     17