act or omission of the defendant.”). Furthermore, even though foreseeability is the principal determinant of duty in Maryland, Foster indirectly touches on most, if not al, of the Althaus factors. , this also suggests the “social utility” and “consequences of imposing a duty” prongs in Althaus weigh against finding a duty owed by GSK. Additionally, the courts and legislature of the Commonwealth have evinced a policy of deference to any well-defined public policy embodied by federal law. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Foster, 585 Pa. 529, 889 A.2d 78, 80-81 (2005) (“the legislative concern for the increasing cost of automobile insurance is the public policy to be advanced by statutory interpretation of the MVFRL”); In re Estate of Wagner, 584 Pa. 49, 880 A.2d 620, 626 (2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Acands, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. &
holding that the statute creating child death reviews to be conducted by the department of public welfare clearly expressed public policy to identify remedial possibilities and better safeguard children which purpose could not be accomplished if agencies feared making discoverable admissions that could lead to liability dictated outcome that audits could not be available to plaintiffs as discovery holding that a waiver argument was not available because the dispute is over the amount of coverage and not a policy defense that could be waived holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt recognizing that an exercise of the police power necessary to safeguard the public safety and welfare can justify impairment of contractual rights and obligations holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden