Allan Ranta v. Catholic Mutual Relief Society
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:11-cv-00074-SB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998900826].. [11-2233]
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/24/2012
Pg: 1 of 10
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2233
ALLAN CARL RANTA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CATHOLIC MUTUAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
WAYLAND YODER BROWN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:11-cv-00074-SB)
Submitted:
May 18, 2012
Decided:
July 24, 2012
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence E. Richter, Jr., Aaron E. Edwards, THE RICHTER FIRM,
LLC, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Richard A.
Farrier, Jr., Robert H. Jordan, NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; David M. Spector,
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/24/2012
Pg: 2 of 10
Dennis G. LaGory, David C. Giles, SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, Chicago,
Illinois, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/24/2012
Pg: 3 of 10
PER CURIAM:
Allan
Carl
Ranta
brought
suit
against
the
Catholic
Mutual Relief Society (“Catholic Mutual”), seeking a declaratory
judgment that the insurance company is required to indemnify
Wayland Yoder Brown, a defrocked priest and convicted pedophile,
for the $100 million tort judgment Ranta obtained against him.
The district court granted Catholic Mutual’s motion for summary
judgment and denied Ranta’s cross motion for summary judgment,
and Ranta now appeals.
reversible error.
We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly, we affirm.
In 2006, Ranta brought suit against Brown, the Holy
See,
the
Roman
Catholic
Diocese
of
Savannah,
and
Most
Rev.
Raymond Lessard and J. Kevin Boland, the Diocese’s former and
current bishops, in South Carolina state court, alleging that
Brown sexually molested, raped, and physically assaulted him as
a minor from 1978 to 1982, resulting in years of psychological
damage with physical manifestations.
“Settlement
Agreement
and
Release”
In 2009, Ranta reached a
with
the
Roman
Catholic
Diocese of Savannah, Lessard, and Boland, whereby Ranta agreed
to release “any and all” claims against the named Defendants, as
well as the Defendants’ insurers, including Catholic Mutual.
In
return, the Defendants agreed to pay Ranta $4.24 million “in
full settlement and discharge of all claims which are, or might
have been, the subject matter of the Complaint.”
3
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/24/2012
Pg: 4 of 10
Ranta subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment
against Brown, who was not a party to the Settlement Agreement.
In response, Brown pled his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination.
The South Carolina Court of Common Pleas granted
Ranta summary judgment on all causes of action, awarding him $50
million in actual damages and $50 million in punitive damages
based upon “the violent and severe sexual abuse” suffered by
Ranta, the pain and suffering that resulted, and the extensive
and substantial medical care incurred.
Ranta v. Roman Catholic
Diocese of Savannah, No. 2006-CO-27-143 (S.C. Ct. Comm. Pl. Jan.
10, 2010).
In
December
2010,
Ranta
brought
the
instant
action
against Catholic Mutual in South Carolina state court, seeking a
declaratory
indemnify
Brown
against him.
and
both
district
judgment
for
that
the
Catholic
$100
Mutual
million
tort
is
obligated
judgment
to
obtained
Catholic Mutual removed the case to federal court,
parties
court
filed
found
motions
that
the
for
summary
Settlement
judgment.
Agreement
did
The
not
release Catholic Mutual with respect to Ranta’s claims against
Brown.
of
However, the court ruled that summary judgment in favor
Catholic
Mutual
was
nonetheless
warranted,
as
Brown’s
intentional acts of sexual molestation did not constitute an
“occurrence” under the insurance policy at issue.
4
The district
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/24/2012
Pg: 5 of 10
court denied Ranta’s subsequent motion to alter or amend the
court’s judgment, and Ranta timely appealed.
We
review
judgment de novo.
the
district
court’s
grant
of
summary
Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d 686, 694
(4th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Summary judgment shall be granted
“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“At the summary judgment
stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those
facts.”
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Where the record taken
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for
the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”
Id.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Under South Carolina choice of law rules, ∗ an insurance
policy is governed by the law of the state in which the policy
was issued.
Unisun Ins. Co. v. Hertz Rental Corp., 436 S.E.2d
549, 551-52 (S.C. Ct. App. 1993).
Brown is a Georgia resident
and the policy was issued in Georgia; therefore, Georgia law
governs the interpretation of the insurance policy.
∗
Pursuant to
As the district court sits in South Carolina, South
Carolina choice of law rules govern this diversity case. Klaxon
Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941).
5
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/24/2012
Pg: 6 of 10
Georgia law, to establish a prima facie case on a claim under an
insurance policy, the insured must show that the occurrence was
within the insured risk.
Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
676 S.E.2d 376, 378 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008); Allstate Ins. Co. v.
Grayes, 454 S.E.2d 616, 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
The
injuries
policy
caused
accident,
by
at
an
including
issue
provides
“occurrence,”
injurious
coverage
which
exposure
to
is
for
personal
defined
as
conditions,
“an
which
results, during the certificate period, in personal injury . . .
neither
expected
insured party.
nor
intended
from
the
standpoint
of
the”
Although the policy does not define the term
“accident,” Georgia caselaw defines an accident as “an event
which
takes
design.”
place
without
one’s
foresight
or
expectation
or
Perry, 676 S.E.2d at 378 (citing Crook v. Ga. Farm
Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 428 S.E.2d 802, 803 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)).
On appeal, Ranta asserts that the district court erred
in finding that Brown’s acts of sexual abuse did not constitute
an “occurrence.”
According to Ranta, Brown knew or should have
known he was a danger to children, yet failed to protect Ranta
from him, thereby breaching his fiduciary duties as a priest.
Therefore,
Ranta
negligence,
which
contends,
triggers
Brown’s
coverage
insurance policy.
6
conduct
under
constitutes
Catholic
Mutual’s
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/24/2012
However,
Ranta’s
attempt
to
the
Pg: 7 of 10
district
court
recharacterize
properly
Brown’s
found
egregious
that
acts
of
child rape and sexual molestation as negligence does not render
Brown’s conduct accidental.
insurance
coverage
for
Numerous Georgia courts have denied
intentional
acts
of
sexual
abuse,
regardless of attempts to recast acts of child molestation in
terms of negligence.
See Roe v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 376
S.E.2d 876, 877 (Ga. 1989) (rejecting argument that insurance
coverage
was
warranted
because
insured
perpetrator
sexually
molested child due to obsessive compulsion, without intent to
injure child, as “intentional child molestation carries with it
a presumption of intent to inflict injury”); Harden v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 605 S.E.2d 37, 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)
(finding
that
homeowner’s
insurance
company
had
no
duty
to
indemnify insured who sexually molested a minor child, as the
insured “engaged in intentional (not accidental) sexual abuse of
the child, causing physical and mental damage to the child which
he could only have expected and intended”).
Indeed, overwhelming precedent establishes that acts
of child molestation are, as a matter of law, considered to be
intentional and therefore outside the scope of an “occurrence”
for insurance coverage purposes.
See Mfr. & Merch. Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Harvey, 498 S.E.2d 222, 226 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998) (listing
decisions
from
forty-one
states
7
finding
that
acts
of
child
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
sexual
Filed: 07/24/2012
molestation
injury).
carry
Pg: 8 of 10
presumption
of
intent
to
inflict
Although Ranta alleges that Brown acted negligently by
failing to protect Ranta against him, the allegations of sexual
misconduct
involve
intentional,
Moreover,
because
Brown’s
willful,
acts
of
and
sexual
deliberate
abuse
acts.
carry
the
inferred intent to harm Ranta, the acts alleged against Brown
are not “occurrences” and, therefore, are beyond the scope of
Catholic Mutual’s insurance coverage.
Ranta next asserts that the district court erroneously
awarded Catholic Mutual summary judgment because Catholic Mutual
failed
to
litigation,
defend
thereby
Brown
in
waiving
the
its
underlying
coverage
South
Carolina
defense.
Because
Catholic Mutual elected not to defend Brown, Ranta advances,
Catholic Mutual is estopped from challenging the state court’s
judgment
that
Brown’s
negligence
was
a
proximate
cause
of
Ranta’s injuries.
The district court properly rejected Ranta’s argument,
as the elements of collateral estoppel are not present.
Under
South Carolina law, collateral estoppel precludes only “a party
to the prior action or one in privity with a party to the prior
action” from relitigating an issue previously litigated.
Ex
parte Allstate Ins. Co., 528 S.E.2d 679, 681 (S.C. Ct. App.
2000).
The term “privy” means “one so identified in interest
with another that he represents the same legal right.”
8
Id.
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
Filed: 07/24/2012
Pg: 9 of 10
Accordingly, when an insurer elects not to defend a tort suit on
the ground that the insured’s tortious conduct was outside the
scope of the insurance policy, the insured and the insurer do
not
share
an
identity
of
interest
regarding
action and, therefore, are not in privity.
the
underlying
See State Farm Fire
& Cas. Co. v. Garrity, 785 F.2d 1225, 1227 (4th Cir. 1986)
(“When
the
insured
is
sued
for
negligence
and
the
insurance
company believes the injury was intentional, [ ] the interests
of the insurer and the insured diverge.”).
Moreover, an insurance company “is neither obligated
to defend nor bound by the findings of the court if the claim
against the insured is not covered by the policy.”
Farm Bureau
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hammer, 177 F.2d 793, 799 (4th Cir.
1949).
of
The district court properly found that the allegations
Ranta’s
defend.
bar
complaint
established
that
there
was
no
duty
to
Accordingly, the South Carolina tort judgment does not
Catholic
intentional
Mutual
and,
from
asserting
therefore,
outside
that
the
Brown’s
scope
conduct
of
was
insurance
coverage.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the
district
facts
court.
and
legal
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
9
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
Appeal: 11-2233
Doc: 26
materials
before
Filed: 07/24/2012
the
court
and
Pg: 10 of 10
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?