 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. S.E.C.U.R.E. Underwriters Risk Retention Group11/27/2000
Appeal From Florence County James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Heard September 11, 2000
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
In this declaratory judgment action, South Carolina Farm Bureau (Farm Bureau) and S.E.C.U.R.E. Underwriters Risk Retention Group (SECURE) sought to determine insurance coverage for injuries sustained by Jordan Purvis, a minor, as the result of a dog bite she sustained while on the premises of Garrison Pest Control, Incorporated. Jordan and her parents brought an action for damages against Ralph Garrison, Mary Garrison, and Garrison Pest Control. Farm Bureau and SECURE sought a declaration of the extent of their coverages. The circuit court determined both carriers had a duty to defend and indemnify the parties in the underlying personal injury action. The court also held Farm Bureau's coverage was primary and SECURE's was excess coverage. Farm Bureau appealed and SECURE cross-appealed the order. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS / PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Farm Bureau issued Ralph and Mary Garrison a homeowner's insurance policy for their home at 2601 Claussen Road in Florence, South Carolina. The Farm Bureau policy provided personal liability coverage subject to certain provisions and exclusions. SECURE provided insurance coverage to Garrison Pest Control through a commercial general liability policy. Garrison Pest Control is owned by the Garrisons and Scott Newell.
On December 12, 1994, Jordan Purvis, a four-year-old girl, was bitten by the Garrisons' dog while lawfully on the business premises of Garrison Pest Control. The dog that bit Jordan was owned and kept by the Garrisons as their family pet. The dog was not kept for security purposes, as a mascot, or in connection with the pest control business. Mary Garrison brought the dog to Garrison Pest Control from the Garrison home when she did not have an alternative place to leave the dog when she came to the office. The dog was owned by the Garrisons and not Garrison Pest Control.
Jack and Susan Purvis are Jordan's parents. Jack, Susan, and Jordan made claims against Ralph Garrison, Mary Garrison, and Garrison Pest Control for injuries Jordan sustained as a result of the dog bite. As a result of this underlying action, coverage was sought from both Farm Bureau and SECURE. Both carriers provided legal defenses under a reservation of rights.
Farm Bureau filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a determination as to whether it had a duty to defend and indemnify its insureds, Ralph and Mary Garrison. SECURE counterclaimed and cross-claimed for similar relief. All parties stipulated to the relevant facts and the admissibility of certain documents which are part of the record.
After a hearing on the matter, the circuit court found both Farm Bureau and SECURE had duties to defend and, if necessary, to indemnify the parties in the underlying personal injury action. The court further held Farm Bureau's coverage was primary and SECURE's coverage to be excess. These appeals follow.
LAW/ANALYSIS
"A suit for declaratory judgment is neither legal nor equitable, but is determined by the nature of the underlying issue." Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 356, 400 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1991). A suit to determine coverage under an insurance policy is an action at law. Therefore, this Court's jurisdiction "is limited to correcting errors of law and factual findings will not be disturbed unless unsupported by any evidence." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. James, 337 S.C. 86, 93, 522 S.E.2d 345, 348-349 (Ct. App. 1999); see also Townes Assocs. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|