402, 920 A.2d 1097. Specifically, the court was especially unwilling to apply the doctrine broadly in the realm of “emergency services,” where “‘the circumstances are often demanding and ... some mistakes will occur.’ ” Id. at 403, 920 A.2d 1097 (quoting Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 490-91, 805 A.2d 372). Thus, McNack falls in line with a number of other Maryland cases that declined to find affirmative acts where the proposed “acts” were general deeds or statements made by government officials commonly directed at members of the public. See, e.g., Pendleton v. State, 398 Md. 447, 487, 921 A.2d 196 (2007) (finding that placement of child in foster care was not affirmative act where it was “statutorily mandated and required act of the State”); Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 498-99, 805 A.2d 372 (<HOLDING>); Pulliam v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 181 Md.App.
holding that claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the texas department of insurance because they concern the claims handling process holding that because plaintiffs claims did not challenge the handling administration or payment of his flood claim or compliance with the act or the regulations the state law claims for breach of contract and tort are not preempted by the nfia holding that other incidents involving children handling firearms were not sufficiently similar to require discovery holding 911 dispatchers promise to send someone out was not affirmative act as there was no indication that the dispatcher handling of a victims call exceeded or was markedly different than her handling of other similar calls and situations holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable