|
|
Summaries of Published Opinions by Insurance Practice Group
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, 372 F.3d 245 (4th Circuit 2004).
This appeal concerns the application and interplay of two major federal environmental protection statutes. The first is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), which authorizes the pursuit of civil actions directly against insurers who have provided RCRA-mandated evidence of financial responsibility to owners and operators of RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities. The second is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), commonly known as “Superfund”), which in proper circumstances authorizes the pursuit of claims for cost recovery and contribution against parties potentially responsible for contaminating CERCLA-regulated facilities. The primary issue on appeal was whether RCRA’s direct action provision could be utilized to pursue CERCLA claims. The circuit court dismissed the claims. Affirmed on appeal. Charles J. Baker and David S. Yandle for appellees.
Beachwalk Homeowners Association v. General Star Indemnity Company, 76 Fed. Appx. 494, 2003 WL 22056951 (C.A.4(S.C.)).
A condominium association brought this action against a commercial property insurer, alleging breach of contract, and bad faith to settle a claim. The claim was bases on structural problems in a particular building. The damage included cracking of the walls and ceilings, sloping of the floors and countertops, and misalignment of the doors. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers. On appeal the court held that the exclusion in the insurance policy precluded coverage for property damage to the condominium building caused by settling. William C. Cleveland and Mark A. Crawford represented the appellee insurer.
Unison Insurance Co. v. Schmidt, 331 S.C. 437, 503 S.E.2d 211 (S.C. App. 1998). BMSM represented State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. in this action. Unison sought a declaratory judgment that its policy provided no liability coverage to driver who was not a permissive user, and passenger then sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under vehicle owner's policy with State Farm. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of State Farm and held that a passenger in a car driven by person who was not a permissive user was not "insured" and, therefore, not entitled to UM benefits. Henry E. Grimball
State Farm v. Aytes, 332 S.C. 30, 503 S.E.2d 744 (S.C. 1998). BMSM represented third party defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance in this matter. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff had auto coverage with State Farm, who she filed suit against to bring into the case the question of coverage under her automobile policy. Defendant had been shot in the foot outside her car by a non-permissive user. A certified question was answered by the Supreme Court holding that her injury did not result from ownership, maintenance or use of her vehicle. No damages were recoverable. Henry E. Grimball
McMillan v. John M. Hughes Seafood Co., 328 S.C. 157, 493 S.E.2d 91 (S.C. 1997). BMSM represented State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., plaintiffs' underinsurance carrier. Plaintiff was injured when train struck tractor-trailer and entered into settlement agreement with train owner, and brought federal action to seek recovery of underinsurance coverage, with any recovery being paid to train owner. U.S. District Court certified question of whether the settlement agreement was an impermissible assignment of claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. The Supreme Court concluded that the settlement agreement was impermissible assignment of claim for UIM benefits and was contrary to statute providing that UIM benefits are not subject to subrogation and assignment. Henry E. Grimball
Noisette v. Ismail, 403 S.E.2d 122 (S.C. 1991) and 384 S.E.2d 310 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989). BMSM represented Allstate Insurance Co. Noisette, a passenger, had obtained a $60,000 judgment against Ismail and then filed this declaratory judgment action against two insurers: Penn National and Allstate. Appellate Court held that Allstate had proved proper cancellation of auto policy as a matter of law. David M. Collins
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Property and Life Ins. Co., 380 S.E.2d 858 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989). BMSM represented Metropolitan in the interpretation of a liability insurance policy. The court ruled in Metropolitan's favor. Joseph H. McGee
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mangum, 383 S.E.2d 464 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989). BMSM prevailed for Allstate in this wrongful death action against a policy holder's estate, interpreting Allstate's insurance policy. Gordon D. Schreck
International Paper Company v. Century Contractors, Inc., 892 F.2d 74 (Table) (4th Cir. 1989) (Unpublished disposition, full text available 1989 WL 152507). BMSM represented Century Contractors, Inc. on brief. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that International Paper and Industrial Risk Insurers, Inc. could not recover because they had contractually assumed the risk of fire loss. Henry B. Smythe, Jr.
American Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Southland Motors, Inc., 302 S.E.2d 854 (S.C. 1983). BMSM represented respondent American Mutual. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in this declaratory judgment action to determine whether the garage liability policy issued to car dealer by defendant insurer provided liability coverage to vehicle in question, or whether the driver was an uninsured motorist. Joseph H. McGee
|
|
