Legal Opinion

State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance v. Raynolds

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided May 13, 2002No. 3488PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Felts v. Richland CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
  2. Diamond State Insurance v. Homestead Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  3. Hegler v. Gulf Insurance Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  4. Fadden v. Cambridge Mutual Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Hofer v. St. ClairSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance v. RaynoldsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API