in effect, would become an ‘independent duty imposed by law.’ ” In sum, because no circumstances warrant the imposition on Martin Marietta of an extra-contractual tort duty to exercise reasonable care in making representations, INTELSAT is precluded from bringing a negligent misrepresentation claim. Gross Negligence Conceding that it is precluded by the contractual waivers in Article 17 from pursuing claims based on ordinary negligence for property damage, lost profits and incidentals, INTELSAT argues that public policy invalidates such waivers as they apply to gross negligence. It is true that courts normally find public policy to prohibit enforcement of contractual waivers of liability in cases of gross negligence. See Boucher v. Riner, 68 Md.App. 539, 543, 514 A.2d 485, 487 (1986) (<HOLDING>). However, the Court finds that in the special
holding that contractual waivers cannot shift risk of a partys own willful wanton reckless or gross conduct holding that municipal police officers are immune from personal liability for decisions acts or omissions that are 1 made within the scope of their official duties while in the course of their employment 2 discretionary rather than ministerial and 3 not made in a wanton or reckless manner holding that a adjuster can only incur independent liability when his conduct constitutes gross negligence malice or reckless disregard for the rights of the insured holding that only reckless or deliberate police conduct will trigger suppression holding that the plain language of the fair labor standards acts willful liquidated damages standard requires that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute without regard to the outrageousness of the conduct at issue