State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance v. Raynolds
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CURETON, J.:
This is a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage under a homeowner’s policy. The trial court found coverage existed under the policy but denied the insureds’ request for attorney fees. Both parties appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Auto Insurance Company (State Auto) brought this declaratory judgment action alleging that the insureds, David W. and Sherry B. Raynolds, were not entitled to insurance coverage or a defense under their homeowner’s policy for injuries that occurred on their property when their dog bit Harold Turner…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Felts v. Richland CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
- Diamond State Insurance v. Homestead Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
- Hegler v. Gulf Insurance Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
- Fadden v. Cambridge Mutual Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Hofer v. St. ClairSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance v. RaynoldsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2004