Here’s the scenario: An employee commits an intentional act that is criminal in nature while on the clock. A third party is injured by this act. The employer is sued based on a theory of vicarious liability. The act was not in the course and scope of employment, nor was it done in furtherance of… Continue Reading
Insurance Law Blog
South Carolina Insurance Law Blog provides the latest legal updates in the field of insurance coverage and is maintained by the Collins & Lacy Insurance Practice Group.
On Missing Insured in South Carolina
Attorneys here at Collins & Lacy act as defense counsel. That means we represent individuals and businesses who have been sued. More often than you may think, we have a hard time finding a person who is being sued. Last week, the South Carolina Bar’s Ethics Advisory Committee issued Ethics Advisory Opinion 2019 19-04, discussing an… Continue Reading
S.C. Supreme Court Clarifies Successor Liability Standard
Court holds plaintiffs must prove three types of commonality Liability of a successor entity under South Carolina’s “mere continuation” rule continues to require commonality of ownership. However, the door may have been opened for successor liability in the absence of commonality of in the future. In Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Eagle Window & Door,… Continue Reading
South Carolina Supreme Court Rules on Automobile Insurance Policy Question
South Carolina law does not require punitive damages be apportioned pro rata between bodily injury and property damage in a split limits automobile insurance policy. In Government Employees Insurance Company v. Poole, 2018 WL 3300235, (S.C., 2018), the South Carolina Supreme Court answered “No” to the following question certified to it by the United States… Continue Reading
SPECIAL REPORT: Reservation of Rights
Insurer’s failure to advise policyholder of its interest in allocated damages results in coverage for general verdict. The South Carolina Supreme Court has concluded that: (1) an insurance company’s reservation of rights letter was insufficient and the insured had therefore waived its coverage defenses; (2) even if the reservation of rights had been effective, the… Continue Reading
Insurer Held to Have Duty to Defend Allegations that Patients’ Medical Records Were Accessible Via Google Search
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer had a duty to defend an insured against class action allegations that the insured posted confidential medical records on the Internet. Two patients at Glen Falls Hospital discovered that when they conducted a “Google” search of their respective names, the first link that appeared… Continue Reading
Insurer Correctly Non-Renewed Homeowner’s Insurance Policy
The South Carolina Court of Appeals has concluded that notice of cancellation of a homeowner’s insurance policy is controlled by S.C. Code § 38-75-1160, not the more general § 38-75-740, and that the mortgage holder was not the homeowner’s agent for purposes of renewing the homeowner’s policy. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v.… Continue Reading
Professional Liability Policy Provides Coverage for Innocent Co-Insureds
In Evanston Ins. Co. v. Agape Sr. Primary Care, Inc., No. 14-2268, 2016 WL 192748 (4th Cir. Jan. 15, 2016), the Fourth Circuit affirmed the South Carolina District Court’s finding that a professional liability policy provided coverage to the innocent co-insureds of a man who posed as a physician. Evanston provided professional liability insurance to… Continue Reading
Employee Exclusion Applies to Independent Contractor Truck Driver
An auto insurer had no duty to defend a trucking company against an injured driver’s claim because the insurance policy excluded claims by “employees,” notwithstanding that the driver was technically an independent contractor. Progressive Mountain Ins. v. Madd Transp. LLC, No. 15-11668 (11th Cir. Dec. 8, 2015). Madd is an interstate trucking company based in… Continue Reading
ONE BUSINESS DAY DELAY IN DELIVERING SETTLEMENT CHECK COSTS INSURER $1.1 MILLION
A South Carolina federal district court judge has ordered that Nationwide must pay an accident victim $1.1 million, in excess of the $50,000 Nationwide policy, as a result of Nationwide’s failure to timely respond to a time-limited settlement demand. Urena v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2:13-CV-03544-DCN (D.S.C. Jul. 30, 2015). The time-limits demand, delivered on… Continue Reading
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 9
- Next Page »
