Camico Mutual Insurance Company v. Jackson CPA Firm et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 33 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 35 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 06/29/2016.(adeh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CAMICO Mutual Insurance Company,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Jackson CPA Firm, f/k/a Jackson and
)
Hammond, LLC, f/k/a Jackson and Hill
)
LLC; Brent Hill; Frank Jackson; David
)
Brooks; Marcia Brooks; Jarrod Brooks;
)
Zita, Inc.; AAA Fence Company of
)
Charleston, Inc.; and Mike Dohoney’s
)
Barrier Island Construction Specialists,
)
Inc.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:15-cv-1823-PMD
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on three cross-motions for summary judgment: one filed
by Plaintiff CAMICO Mutual Insurance Company (ECF No. 33); one filed by Defendants
Jackson CPA Firm, Brent Hill, and Frank Jackson (the “Accountants”) (ECF No. 32); and one
filed by Defendants David Brooks, Marcia Brooks, Jarrod Brooks, Zita,

Inc.,

AAA

Fence

Company of Charleston, Inc., and Mike Dohoney’s Barrier Island Construction Specialists, Inc.
(the “Clients”) (ECF No. 35). After carefully considering the parties’ arguments, thoroughly
reviewing the record, and studying the relevant authorities, the Court has determined there are
genuine disputes of fact on a number of material issues. Those issues include, but are not limited
to, the following: (1) whether the Royal Marine and Transport Partners matter ever became a
“Claim,” as defined in the first sentence of Section IV.(c) of the insurance policies; (2) whether
any or all of the Clients’ claims against the Accountants are logically or causally connected to
the Royal Marine and Transport Partners matter by one or more common facts, circumstances,

situations, transactions, events, advice, or decisions; (3) whether any or all the Clients’ claims
against the Accountants are logically or causally connected to each other by one or more
common facts, circumstances, situations, transactions, events, advice, or decisions; (4) when the
Accountants became obligated to inform CAMICO of the matters that later became the Clients’
claims; and (5) whether CAMICO’s handling of the Clients’ claims has been reasonable or
instead constitutes bad faith. Because the genuine disputes involve facts that are material to
CAMICO’s claim and to the Accountants’ counterclaims, the Court cannot grant summary
judgment.
Accordingly, the three above-mentioned motions are DENIED. Pretrial briefing, jury
selection, and trial shall proceed as previously scheduled.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 29, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

2