MD STATECourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
1996

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership

109 Md. App. 217Court of Special Appeals of Maryland • Decided 1996Modified

HOLDING

A condominium council sued a developer and subcontractors for defects in a Baltimore high-rise. The court ruled that failing to build according to plans and specifications violates Maryland's Consumer Protection Act and constitutes deceptive trade practices. This means subcontractors can face consumer protection claims—not just contract claims—if their work doesn't match the approved plans, and these claims may have longer time limits than standard breach of contract suits.

KEY FINDINGS

Broad Indemnification

Building work that deviates from plans and specs can trigger consumer protection lawsuits, which carry different (often longer) statutes of limitations than contract claims

Flow-Down

Subcontractors should document all plan compliance and get written approval for any deviations to defend against deceptive trade practice allegations

Dispute Resolution

Performance bond issuers like Hartford may be dragged into disputes as third parties, so ensure your bonds clearly define scope and limits

FULL COURT OPINION