First Professionals Insurance v. Kyrsten Sutton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00194-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999992591].. [15-2391]

Appeal: 15-2391

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2391

FIRST PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KYRSTEN E. SUTTON, M.D.,
Defendant and 3rd-Party Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
AMY MOORE, As Parent and Guardian ad Litem for N. M., a
minor; RICHARD MOORE, As Parent and Guardian ad Litem for
N. M., a minor,
Intervenors/Defendants,
v.
THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY,
Third-Party Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00194-RMG)

Argued:

December 9, 2016

Decided:

December 22, 2016

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Appeal: 15-2391

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: George J. Kefalos, GEORGE J. KEFALOS, P.A., Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas C. Salane, TURNER,
PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Oana D. Johnson, JANIK, LLP, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
R. Hawthorne Barrett, TURNER,
PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2391

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
This case returns after a prior appeal and remand.
multiparty

insurance

coverage

dispute

arising

It is a

under

the

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction involving two professional
liability insurance policies issued to Appellant, Dr. Kyrsten E.
Sutton.

Familiarity with the prior appeal is assumed.

See

First Prof’ls Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 607 F. App’x 276 (4th Cir.
2015).
Back before us after having substantially prevailed in the
prior appeal by securing coverage under one of the two policies
at

issue,

rephrased)

Dr.
for

Sutton
our

presents

review

from

the
the

following

district

issues

court’s

adverse

coverage determination as to the second of the two policies:
I.

Whether the district court erred, under South
Carolina law, in its interpretation of an exclusion
in the second insurance policy;

II.

Whether the district court erred in its failure to
find that the absence of expert testimony precluded
a finding in favor of First Professionals Insurance
Company;

III. Whether the
Carolina law,
contained in
respect to one
IV.

district court erred, under South
in its interpretation of a question
the application for insurance in
of the policies at issue; and

Whether the district court erred insofar as its
findings and conclusions contradicted a conclusion
contained in this Court’s prior opinion.

3

(as

Appeal: 15-2391

Doc: 29

Filed: 12/22/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

Having had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument,
and having fully considered the parties’ contentions, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough
memorandum

opinion

conclusions of law.

setting

forth

its

findings

of

fact

and

First Prof’ls Ins. Co. v. Sutton, No. 2:12-

cv-00194-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2015).
AFFIRMED

4