HARRY HUGHES, Governor

4757

(5) THE SELLER DID NOT ALTER, MODIFY, ASSEMBLE,
OR MISHANDLE THE PRODUCT WHILE IN THE SELLER'S POSSESSION IN
A MANNER WHICH WAS THE PROXIMATE AND SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF
THE CLAIMANT'S INJURY.

(C)  THE DEFENSE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS
SECTION IS NOT AVAILABLE IF:

(1)  THE MANUFACTURER IS NOT SUBJECT TO SERVICE
OF PROCESS UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR THE MARYLAND
RULES;

(2)  THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY
DECLARED INSOLVENT IN THAT THE MANUFACTURER IS UNABLE TO PAY
ITS DEBTS AS THEY BECOME DUE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
BUSINESS;

(3)  THE COURT DETERMINES IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE
BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE CLAIMANT WOULD BE
UNABLE TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PRODUCT
MANUFACTURER;

(4)  THE CLAIMANT IS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE
MANUFACTURER;

(5)  THE MANUFACTURER IS OTHERWISE IMMUNE FROM
SUIT; OR

(6)  THE SELLER MADE ANY EXPRESS WARRANTIES, THE
BREACH OF WHICH WERE THE PROXIMATE AND SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF
THE CLAIMANT'S INJURY.

(D)  (1) EXCEPT IN AN ACTION BASED ON AN EXPRESSED
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT, IF THE SELLER SHOWS BY UNREBUTTED FACTS
THAT HE HAS SATISFIED SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION AND
THAT SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY, SUMMARY
JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED IN HIS FAVOR AS TO THE ORIGINAL OR
THIRD PARTY ACTIONS.

(2) NOTWITHSTANDING THE GRANTING OF A MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (D)(1) OF THIS

SECTION, THE SELLER WILL THEREAFTER CONTINUE TO BE TREATED
AS THOUGH HE WERE STILL A PARTY FOR ALL PURPOSES OF
DISCOVERY INCLUDING THE USES THEREOF.

(2) (3) ON A SUBSEQUENT SHOWING OF THE OCCURENCE
OF ANY CONDITION DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS
SECTION , OR THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE CONDITIONS OF
SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION DID NOT EXIST, DURING THE
PENDING LITIGATION , THE ACTIONS SO DISMISSED BY SUMMARY
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (D) (I) OF THIS SECTION
SHALL BE REINSTATED AND ARE NOT BARRED BY THE PASSAGE OF
TIME.