the motion as “premature'' and the motion was denied. At the close of all the evidence counsel for Sherwood asked to "renew the motions I made at the close of the evidence earlier.... I adopt them by reference specifically.” Merely stating that a party “renews” its motion for judgment at the close of all the evidence, after making a motion at the close of the opponent's evidence, usually is not enough to preserve the issue for appellate review. Ford v. Tittsworth, 77 Md.App. 770, 773-74, 551 A.2d 945 (1989). Normally, counsel is required to restate with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted. Id. That gene 9-90, 388 A.2d 543 (1978)), aff’d, 318 Md. 615, 569 A.2d 693 (1990). 17 . See also Brethren Mut. Ins. Co. v. Filsinger, 54 Md.App. 357, 365, 458 A.2d 880 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 296 Md. 223
holding that in light of evidence that the insurer would have denied coverage even if it had received suit papers on a timely basis the insurer could not show prejudice holding that a denial of coverage based on a reasonable interpretation of the policy is not bad faith even if incorrect holding that regardless of insurers good faith denial of coverage plaintiff is entitled to recover interest to put it in position it would have been in if coverage had not been denied holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage