QBE Insurance Corporation v. Robert Crook

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-01937-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999795234].. [15-1880]

Appeal: 15-1880

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1880

QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
NICHOLAS BROOK COBB,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
ROBERT JOSEPH CROOKS,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-01937-TMC)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

April 14, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jon E. Newlon, John R. McCravy, III, MCCRAVY, NEWLON & STURKIE
LAW FIRM, PA, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Morgan S. Templeton, Graham P. Powell, WALL, TEMPLETON &
HALDRUP, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 15-1880

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1880

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Robert Crooks, who was employed by Jeco, Inc., moved into
an apartment in the building housing Jeco’s business to provide
some

level

of

security

for

the

business

off-hours.

While

entertaining friends in the apartment, Crooks accidentally shot
Nicholas

Cobb,

against

Crooks

seriously

injuring

him,

in

court.

QBE

state

and

Cobb

Insurance

filed

suit

Corporation,

Jeco’s insurer, filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment
that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Crooks in the
underlying action.

The district court granted summary judgment

for QBE, and Cobb appealed.

Cobb argues that the district court

overlooked genuine disputes of material fact in granting summary
judgment and that even absent such disputes, QBE has a duty to
defend and indemnify Crooks as a matter of law.

We affirm.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing
all

reasonable

inferences

in

favor

of

the

nonmoving

party.

Butler v. Drive Auto. Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404, 407
(4th

Cir.

2015).

Summary

judgment

is

only

appropriate

when

“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Civ. P. 56(a).
party

must

rely

Fed. R.

In opposing summary judgment, “the nonmoving
on

more

than

conclusory

allegations,

mere

speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the

3

Appeal: 15-1880

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/14/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.”

Dash v. Mayweather,

731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013).
Cobb

first

contends

that

summary

judgment

was

premature

because genuine disputes of material fact pervade this action.
We

agree

with

the

district

court,

however,

that

the

factual

disputes cited by Cobb are either not genuine or not material.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
We perceive no factual dispute that precluded entry of summary
judgment for QBE.
As to Cobb’s claim that the policy provides coverage as a
matter of law, insurance policies in South Carolina are subject
“to

general

rules

of

contract

construction,

and

therefore

[courts] must . . . give policy language its plain, ordinary,
and popular meaning.”
S.E.2d

399,

406

Bell v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 757

(2014)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

South Carolina law instructs that “[a]n act is within the scope
of

a

servant’s

employment

where

reasonably

necessary

to

accomplish the purpose of his employment and in furtherance of
the

master’s

business.”

Armstrong

v.

Food

Lion,

Inc.,

639

S.E.2d 50, 52 (S.C. 2006); see S.C. State Budget & Control Bd.
v. Prince, 403 S.E.2d 643, 646 (S.C. 1991) (approving use of
general workers’ compensation and master-servant principles to
interpret “course of employment” in insurance context).

If,

however, “a servant steps aside from the master’s business for
4

Appeal: 15-1880

some

Doc: 31

purpose

Filed: 04/14/2016

wholly

Pg: 5 of 5

disconnected

with

his

employment,

the

relation of master and servant is temporarily suspended”; “this
is so no matter how short the time, and the master is not liable
for his acts during such time.”

Armstrong, 639 S.E.2d at 53.

Here, Crooks’ discharge of the firearm was not within the
scope of his employment or in performance of a duty related to
employment.

To conclude otherwise would stretch the insurance

policy far beyond its intended coverage, and South Carolina has
long held that “courts are not at liberty to adopt some strained
or

violent

interpretation

not

contemplated

by

the

parties.”

Long Motor Lines v. Home Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Cal., 67
S.E.2d 512, 516 (S.C. 1951).
We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

5