Auto-Owners Insurance v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1837
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:12-cv-03423-RBH)
Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John L. McCants, ROGERS LEWIS JACKSON MANN & QUINN, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen L. Brown,
Russell G. Hines, Jeffrey J. Wiseman, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“Auto-Owners”) appeals from
the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”).
Auto-Owners sought a declaratory judgment that Travelers had a
duty to defend the insurance companies’ mutually insured client
and also sought contribution, recompense for unjust enrichment,
and equitable subrogation. On appeal, Auto-Owners argues that
the district court erroneously concluded that its claims failed
under South Carolina law. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.
We review de novo whether a district court erred in
granting summary judgment, viewing the facts and drawing all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 213 (4th
Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is properly granted “if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Because the district court was
exercising its diversity jurisdiction, South Carolina
substantive law applies. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S.
64, 78-80 (1938); see Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d
362, 369-72 (4th Cir. 2013).
We conclude that Auto-Owners is not entitled to declaratory
or monetary relief under South Carolina law. The South Carolina
2
Supreme Court has held that “where two companies insure the
identical risk and both policies provide for furnishing the
insured with a defense, neither company, absent a contractual
relationship, can require contribution from the other for the
expenses of the defense where one denies liability and refuses
to defend.” Sloan Constr. Co. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co., 236
S.E.2d 818, 820 (S.C. 1977). The Sloan court reasoned that
“[t]he duty to defend is personal to both insurers; neither is
entitled to divide the duty.” Id. Further, the court concluded
that the insurance company that provided a defense was not
harmed by the other’s failure to do so because its expenses
“were incurred in the fulfillment of its own obligation to its
insured” and it “was doing no more than it obligated itself to
do under its policy with [the insured].” Id.
Here, Auto-Owners was fulfilling its own obligations to its
insured by providing a defense in the underlying state court
action. See Town of Duncan v. State Budget & Control Bd., Div.
of Ins. Servs., 482 S.E.2d 768, 774 (S.C. 1997). As in Sloan,
whether Travelers also has a duty to defend the litigation is
irrelevant to Auto-Owners’ duty, and Auto-Owners, in providing
the defense, has done “no more than it obligated itself to do
under its policy.” Sloan, 236 S.E.2d at 820.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4