Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-1444
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:10-cv-01620-JFA)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Standard Pacific of the Carolinas, LLC (Standard Pacific)
brought
this
action
against
Amerisure
Insurance
Company
of
the
insured,
Standard Pacific.
we
hold
that
it
provides
coverage
to
Accordingly, we reverse.
I.
A.
On June 21, 2008, Terry Shortt fell off his bicycle and
broke
his
back
after
encountering
an
allegedly
deteriorated
Standard Pacific,
of
the
Ridge
Point
Community
project.
Standard
Agreement
2
(the
Agreement).
to
prevent
dangerous
and
hidden
conditions.
Standard
among
other
relief,
the
courts
declaration
of
the
an
insurance
policy
issued
by
Amerisure
to
Matthews.
$2,000,000.
Blanket
J.A.
112.
Additional
endorsement
provided
The
Insured
coverage
operations
policy
aggregate
included
Endorsement.
under
the
of
Contractors
J.A.
policy
limit
to
28.
The
additional
or agreement.
equipment
operations.
The
furnished
in
connection
with
such
work
or
J.A. 105.
Agreement,
which
predated
the
insurance
policy,
First, it
effect
coverage
Liability
a
at
policy
least
(2)
Standard
general
equivalent
Insurance
Products/Completed
of
policy, 1
Operations
Pacifics
to
liability
the
with
1986
at
Aggregate
predecessor,
insurance
Commercial
least
Limit,
Westfield
General
$500,000.000
J.A.
Homes
providing
184,
of
and
North
Id.
Pacific
Pleadings/Summary
moved
for
Judgment
regarding
the
judgment
motion
to
and
Amerisure.
Partial
The
sua
court
on
Amerisures
J.A. 350-56.
instead
Judgment
the
insurance
sponte
noted
granted
that,
summary
the
plain
the
additional
insured
only
when
written
agreement
J.A. 559.
and
concluded
that
[n]owhere
in
the
Work,
J.A.
as
to
558.
what
And
type
to
of
the
extent
coverage
was
that
there
required
by
was
the
order,
dismissing,
which
without
the
court
prejudice,
denied.
its
After
remaining
voluntarily
claims,
Standard
II.
We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo,
applying
the
same
standard
applied
by
the
district
court.
Overstreet v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 931, 938
(4th Cir. 1991).
We consider here whether the language of the Agreement is
sufficient to trigger coverage for Standard Pacific under the
additional insured endorsement contained in the Amerisure policy
issued
afforded
to
Matthews.
Standard
Matthewss
ongoing
Amerisure
Pacific
by
operations
the
contends
that
endorsement
because
the
the
is
coverage
limited
Agreement
does
to
not
that the endorsement does not require the use of the term your
2
The district court also held that the Agreement does not
violate
South
Carolina
Code
32-2-10,
which
declares
construction contracts that indemnify the promisee against
liability resulting from their own negligence void as against
public policy. That ruling has not been appealed.
if
the
Agreement
includes
wording
to
that
same
Pacific.
Under
South
insurance
Carolina
policy
are
law,
clauses
be
narrowly
to
of
exclusion
interpreted,
Mich.
Mut.
Ins.
Co.,
426
S.E.2d
in
770,
771
an
while
McPherson
(S.C.
1993). 3
reasonable
interpretations,
the
court
will
adopt
the
Forner v. Butler,
same
effect
operations.
in
order
to
invoke
coverage
for
completed
the
Agreement
does
not
explicitly
refer
to
your
work
sufficient
Liability
minimum
to
trigger
Insurance
section
amount
of
coverage.
of
the
Products/Completed
To
begin
Agreement
with,
requires
Operations
the
a
coverage,
injury
and
property
damages
arising
out
of
your
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Ill., 524 S.E.2d 847, 851 (S.C. 1999).
Moreover,
the
Indemnity
section
of
the
Agreement
obligates
out
of
and
are
undefined
Although
in
the
the
conclusion
that
the
parties
contemplated
your
work coverage.
In that regard, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has
interpreted arising out of to mean caused by in the context
of
an
exclusionary
clause
in
general
liability
policy.
Additionally, performance is
duty
Blacks
Dictionary
Law
and
is
1252
also
(9th
8
termed
ed.
full
2009).
performance.
And
although
past
or
specifically
future
contracted
liability,
for
id.,
prospective
the
parties
indemnity
for
here
claims
wording
to
policy endorsement.
that
same
effect
as
contemplated
by
the
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the
district
court
and
remand
with
instructions
that
it
enter