Court Opinion

ID: 9517587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:22:37.033367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:32:06.535613
License: Public Domain

SHEDD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately to note that I would hold that the statutory phrase “issued to a resident” is ambiguous. Under Maryland law, a statute is ambiguous “[wjhen there is more than one reasonable interpretation” of the statute. Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 879 A.2d 1111, 1113 (2005). I believe that the phrase “issued to a resident” could reasonably be interpreted to mean (1) issued to one who was a resident at the time the policy was issued, or (2) issued to one who is currently a resident. Notwithstanding this ambiguity, I believe that the legislative history and policy behind the statute, as discussed in the majority opinion, lead to the conclusion that the majority’s result is correct.