Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jane DOE, BY AND THROUGH her mother and natural Guardian ad Litem, Mary ROE; Mary Roe, individually, Defendants-Appellants,
Rose Wadford Hunter, Defendant. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jane doe, by and through her mother and natural Guardian ad Litem, Mary Roe; Mary Roe, individually, Defendants-Appellants, Rose Wadford Hunter, Defendant.
Mary Roe and Jane Doe (collectively, “Roe/Doe”) appeal the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (“Allstate”). The district court concluded that Allstate had no duty to defend or indemnify Roe/Doe's claims against Joseph Stephen Hunter, Sr., who allegedly sexually abused Jane Doe for nearly 10 years, and Rose Wadford Hunter, who Roe/Doe claim knew of and failed to prevent the abuse. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error.
Roe/Doe do not dispute the district court's findings as to Joseph Hunter; they challenge only the court's grant of summary judgment on their negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation claims against Rose Hunter. The district court properly accepted Roe/Doe's factual allegations from the underlying state complaint and granted summary judgment applying settled state law. The court also correctly held that Allstate had no duty to defend and indemnify Roe/Doe's defamation claims against Rose Hunter, since Roe/Doe themselves alleged that Rose Hunter's actions were intentional. See Miller v. Fid.-Phx. Ins. Co., 268 S.C. 72, 231 S.E.2d 701, 702 (1977). Finally, the district court correctly held that Allstate had no duty to defend and indemnify Roe/Doe's negligence claims against Rose Hunter, based on the South Carolina Supreme Court's conclusion that “the Hunter policy unambiguously denies coverage to Rose Hunter where Joseph Hunter has been barred from coverage.” Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Hunter, 425 S.C. 246, 821 S.E.2d 493, 494 (2018) (alterations omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-2079, No. 19-1180
Decided: January 30, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)