Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Practice – Removal – Diversity – Fraudulent Joinder Claim – Insurance Adjuster

By: Teresa Bruno, Opinions Editor//June 16, 2017//

Civil Practice – Removal – Diversity – Fraudulent Joinder Claim – Insurance Adjuster

By: Teresa Bruno, Opinions Editor//June 16, 2017//

Listen to this article

Aung v. GEICO (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-153-17, 8 pp.) (Patrick Michael Duffy, J.) 9:17-cv-00856; D.S.C.

Holding: Under South Carolina law (1) generally, employees may be held personally liable for torts they commit in the scope of their employment, even if the employer is also liable by virtue of respondeat superior, and (2) no South Carolina case clearly carves out an exception to that rule for in-house insurance adjusters (Charleston Dry Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 586 S.E.2d 586 (S.C. 2003), involved an independent adjuster). Defendants have not met their enormous burden of showing there is no glimmer of hope that plaintiff could prove her negligence claim against defendant Cogdill, an insurance adjuster who lives in South Carolina. Since diversity of citizenship is not complete, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

The court grants plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court.

 

Business Law

See all Business Law News

Commentary

See all Commentary

Polls

How Is My Site?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...