Allstate Insurance Company v. Hancock

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 3/18/2016. (cags, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.
JONATHAN HANCOCK, ET AL.

•

•
•
•
•
•

Civil No. - JFM-15-963

******
MEMORANDUM

Allstate Insurance Company has brought this action for a declaratory judgment that it has
no obligation to defend or to provide insurance in connection with a suit filed against Jonathan
Hancock and other defendants in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City for lead paint
exposure. The discovery deadline has passed, and Allstate has filed a motion for summary
judgment.

Defendant Jonathan Hancock, who is appearing pro se, has opposed the motion.

Hancock is the owner of the property and the alleged insured. The other defendant, the plaintiff
in the underlying tort action, is represented by counsel and has filed no response to the motion.
The motion will be granted.
Allstate did issue an insurance policy to Hancock for 128 N. Poplin Street, the alleged
place where the lead poisoning occurred. The policy was a homeowners one, however, and
excluded coverage for "business activities" which was defined to mean "any property rented or
held for rental by an insured person."
Hancock alleges that he telephoned all Allstate agent and told him that he (Hancock) was
no longer living at the premises and was renting them. There is, however, no objective evidence
to substantiate Hancock's testimony, and Allstate never issued a new policy to Hancock.

1

Instead, it continued to issue the homeowners policy, which contained the reservation of
coverage stated above.
It is Hancock's burden to prove that coverage existed. See Perdue Farms Inc. v. National
Union Fire Ins. Co., 197 F. Supp. 2d, 370-376 (D. Md. 2002); Mayor & City Council of
Baltimore v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 145 Md. App. 256, 300, 802 A.2d 1070, 1096 (2002). Hancock
has not met this burden. He was under an obligation to review the policy issued to him, Shepard
v. Keystone Ins. Co., 743 F. Supp. 429, 432 (D. Md. 1990), and if he had read the policy issued
by Allstate he would have known that he was not afforded coverage.
A separate order effecting the ruling made in this memorandum is being entered
herewith.

Date:

) II~J
1. rederick Motz
nited States District Judge

OZ :C tid 81 ~~W 9102