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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?