South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

McCravy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. A bank employee who paid for life insurance for her daughter through her employee benefit plan, but who was denied insurance benefits when her 25-year-old daughter died, has her claim for “equitable relief” for the insurance carrier’s breach of fiduciary duty reconsidered by the 4th Circuit, in light of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011).

Tagged with: Breach of Fiduciary Duty ERISA Insurance Labor & Employment Life

ESAB Group Inc. v. Zurich Insurance PLC The 4th Circuit upholds a district court order requiring a South Carolina manufacturer facing multi-million dollar products liability claims to arbitrate a coverage dispute with an insurance carrier under a foreign arbitration agreement, and remanding certain non-arbitrable claims to state court.

Tagged with: Arbitration Insurance

Griffith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. Where the defendant-insurer did not breach any duty to the plaintiff-homeowner, the insurer is not required to pay prejudgment interest on the homeowner’s loss. The insurer’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Tagged with: Homeowners Insurance Prejudgment Interest

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rhoden When a mother (who had underinsured motorist coverage on her own vehicles) and one of her daughters were injured in an accident while riding with another daughter (who did not have UIM coverage on her vehicle that was involved in the accident), the mother and the non-owner daughter are entitled to UIM benefits from the mother’s policy; however, the driver-daughter is not entitled to UIM benefits from the mother’s policy.

Tagged with: Auto Insurance Public Policy UIM

Boyd v. Liberty Life Insurance Co. Although plaintiff authorized the defendant-insurer to draft the premium amounts from his checking account, since the insurer never initiated the drafts, there was no consideration for the proposed life insurance policy.

Tagged with: Contract Insurance Life

Stevenson v. Allstate Insurance Co. The defendant-insurer presented the report of an engineer who said there was some wind damage to the roofs of plaintiff’s barn and shed, but most of the damage was due to the structures’ age and vermin infestation.

Tagged with: Homeowners Insurance

National Specialty Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa. There is a jury question as to whether an insurance agent acted reasonably when he waited to report a potential claim to the defendant-errors and omissions (E&O) insurer until he heard back from the plaintiff-auto insurer as to whether a client’s new truck was covered under the auto policy’s newly acquired vehicle provision.

Tagged with: Insurance

Mitchell v. SCANA Corp. Where plaintiff’s own treating physicians disagreed as to whether he was totally disabled, the defendant-plan administrator did not abuse its discretion when it gave more weight to the opinions of the physicians who did not believe plaintiff was disabled.

Tagged with: Insurance Medical Records

Affirmative Insurance Services, Inc. v. Cruz-Campos (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-066-12, 2 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Jasper County Circuit Court. (D. Craig Brown, J.) S.C. App. Unpub. Holding: Where several individuals became involved in a physical altercation outside of their vehicles, resulting in the shootings of defendant and Jorge Luna (also outside the subject vehicles), there was no evidence that the vehicles were active accessories to the assault or that defendant’s injuries were foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicles. No causal connection between defendant’s injuries and the uninsured vehicles was established.

Tagged with: Auto Insurance Shooting

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Doscher’s Super Markets In a dispute over a personal relationship, a co-worker shot the defendant-employee while they were in the defendant-employer’s break room. When the injured employee sued the employer for negligence, the “employer’s liability” exclusion in the plaintiff-insurer’s commercial general liability policy did not relieve the insurer of its duty to defend and indemnify the employer.

Tagged with: CGL Insurance