State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance v. Raynolds
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
TOAL, C.J.:
Petitioner State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“State Auto”) asserts that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that insured David and Sherry Raynolds (“the Raynolds”), were entitled to coverage and a defense for a third party’s personal injury that occurred at the Raynolds’ home. State Auto also seeks to overturn the trial court’s decision awarding the Raynolds attorney’s fees. We now reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the Raynolds were not entitled to coverage, a defense, or attorney’s fees.
Factual/Procedural…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Wiley v. Travelers Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. MooreAppellate Court of Illinois · 1981
- Hegler v. Gulf Insurance Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
- Fadden v. Cambridge Mutual Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Pacific Indemnity Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. GarfinkelColorado Court of Appeals · 2012
- Owners Ins. Co. v. Warren Mech., LLCDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2018
- NAT. FARMERS UNION PROPERTY v. GarfinkelColorado Court of Appeals · 2012
- United Property & Casualty Insurance v. CoutureDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2022