In BGE Home Prods. & Servs., Inc. v. Owens, 377 Md. 236, 239, 833 A.2d 8 (2003), BGE submitted to the Motor Vehicle Administration ("MVA") a self-insurance application for its vehicles, as well as a signed "Guarantee," which guaranteed payment of all valid claims "as if a policy of vehicle liability insurance were in effect." Id. at 239-40. Neither the application nor the Guarantee contained a permissive user clause. Id. at 240. The MVA subsequently issued BGE a "Certificate of Self-Insurance," for the period of February 1, 1998 to February 1, 1999. Id. On July 16, 1998, Michael Owens, a BGE employee, was driving a BGE van from his workplace to his home after completion of the workday. Id. On his way, Owens stopped by a friend's apartment and consumed six or seven beers. Id. at 241. After resuming his journey home, Owens lost control of the van, crossed the centerline, and collided with another vehicle. Id. After suit was filed against Owens and BGE to recover for personal injuries suffered in the accident, BGE filed a separate declaratory action in the circuit court, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Owens because, at the time of the accident, Owens was not operating the BGE van within the scope of permission. Id. at 241-42. The circuit court granted summary judgment against BGE, holding that BGE had a duty to defend and that the absence of a permissive user clause in the self-insurance documents "precluded BGE from disclaiming coverage on the ground that Owens was not driving within the scope of permission." Id. at 242-43. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the circuit court. Id. at 245. The Court held, inter alia, "that the court below correctly decided that the absence of a permissive user clause in the self-insurance documents precluded BGE from disclaiming indemnity coverage on the ground that Owens was not driving the vehicle within the scope of permission." Id. The Court began its analysis with the premise that, under Maryland's compulsory motor vehicle insurance law, "'the General Assembly . . . recognized approved self-insurance as the equivalent of an insurance policy,'" id. at 246-47. The Court then reasoned: Maryland law clearly does not recognize exclusions, restrictions, or limitations in insurance policies which are not set forth in the policies. In fact, as pointed out above, even many of those expressly set forth are not given effect. Likewise, we should not recognize exclusions, restrictions, or limitations which are not mentioned in the self-insurance documents. Id. at 249-50. The Court concluded: "If a self-insurer desires a particular exclusion or restriction, the self-insurer should put it in its application. The exclusion or restriction will then have the same status as an exclusion or restriction in a motor vehicle insurance policy." Id. at 250.