 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Capital Insurance Co. v. Forrest10/17/2005
Heard September 14, 2005
AFFIRMED
State Capital Insurance Company ("State Capital") appeals a portion of a declaratory judgment finding two separate "occurrences" under the terms of a homeowner's insurance policy. Randall W. Smith also appeals a portion of the order. We affirm.
FACTS / PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 18, 1997, Jill and Scott Forrest set out by boat with two other couples from their home on Lake Murray for a restaurant and bar on the lake's opposite shore. On board were at least two cases of beer. The entire party consumed alcohol throughout the trip and subsequent dinner with the exception of Scott Forrest, who stopped drinking at the restaurant in anticipation of operating the boat on the trip home. The party did not decide to head for home until the early morning hours of July 19. Before leaving the bar and restaurant, the group became aware that the stern light, required for nighttime navigation, was inoperable, but decided to make the return trip anyway. Despite the fact that Scott was the most sober of the group, Jill Forrest captained the boat on the way home.
That same evening, Randall Smith and his eleven-year-old son, Drew, were night fishing on the lake on a small fishing boat. Shortly after leaving the restaurant, the Forrests' boat collided with Mr. Smith's boat, killing his young son and sinking the smaller vessel. Several of the Forrests' passengers were thrown from their boat. Following the collision, Mr. Forrest took control of their boat and began to pick up his passengers. Deception on the part of the Forrests and their passengers regarding the circumstances of the accident began almost immediately.
As Mr. Smith floated in the lake, cradling the lifeless body of his son, Mrs. Forrest told her husband that he should tell the authorities he was operating the boat so that assets in her name would not be subject to liability. The Forrests persuaded the other passengers to go along with this version of the events, and several members of the group promptly began sinking beer cans in the lake to conceal evidence of their earlier drinking. Due to their deception, it was Mr. Forrest, and not Mrs. Forrest, who was administered a field sobriety test upon the authorities' arrival. Most significant to the present appeal, Mr. Forrest claimed during the investigation that Mr. Smith was operating his boat at night without proper lighting, effectively accusing him of unlawful conduct. So clear was the inference of Mr. Smith's fault, he was given Miranda warnings prior to questioning by the investigating officers. The Forrests also told investigators that their boat had a functioning stern light at the time of the collision, which was another intentional falsehood.
The Forrests' ruse was maintained for a few weeks, as much of the investigation focused on Mr. Smith and whether he maintained proper lighting on his fishing boat. Due to some inconsistencies in the passengers' stories, however, the focus of the investigation began to shift to the Forrests. Weeks after the collision, two of the Forrests' passengers confessed to law enforcement regarding the operator of the watercraft at the time of the accident, the status of its stern light, and the concealment of evidence.
Mr. Smith brought an action against the Forrests, asserting claims based on their negligence in operating the boat as well as their deceitful actions following the accident. Karen Smith, Drew's mother, brought a wrongful death action based on her capacity as personal representative of Drew's estate. Based on a homeowner's insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident, State Capital agreed to defend the Forrests unde
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|