Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01215/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01215-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

ON REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1215

GENERALI-US BRANCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT

LLOYD’S LONDON; NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY; COLONY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

COASTAL EXTERIORS, INCORPORATED; AGEE-MCCOY, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:03-cv-04057-MJP)

Submitted: December 10, 2007 Decided: June 6, 2008

Appeal: 07-1215 Doc: 57 Filed: 06/06/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John R. Murphy, Adam J. Neil, MURPHY GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen L. Brown, Russell G. Hines,

YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; Steven E.

Farrar, Thomas M. Larkin, LEATHERWOOD, WALKER, TODD & MANN, P.C.,

Greenville, South Carolina; Robert M. Darroch, Constance B. Woods,

GOODMAN, MCGUFFEY, LINDSEY & JOHNSON, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia;

Thomas F. Dougall, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS DOUGALL, Elgin, South

Carolina; Philip E. Reeves, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A.,

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1215 Doc: 57 Filed: 06/06/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Generali Insurance Company appeals from the district

court’s order granting partial summary judgment to Defendants. The

district court concluded that the Defendant insurance companies

were not responsible for reimbursing Generali for its defense of

Agee-McCoy, Inc., in the various suits brought against Agee-McCoy.

The district court concluded that Agee-McCoy was never an

insured under any of the Defendants’ insurance policies and that

the Defendants therefore had no duty to defend with regard to the

claims asserted against Agee-McCoy. See Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Askins, 413 S.E.2d 855, 859 (S.C. Ct. App. 1992) (“Fundamental to

the concept of duty to defend is the requirement that the party

seeking the defense must be an insured under a contract of

insurance.”).

Generali in its opening brief does not contend that the

district court erred in concluding that Agee-McCoy was not an

insured under the Defendants’ policies, nor does it argue that

South Carolina law imposes a duty to defend claims asserted against

a party who is not an insured. Instead, Generali asserts that the

policies at issue obligate the Defendants to pay all sums that

their insured (Coastal Exteriors, Inc.) becomes obligated to pay as

damages and that, under various theories of successor liability,

Coastal Exteriors will be liable for any judgments against AgeeMcCoy. The Defendants’ policies, however, do not require the

Appeal: 07-1215 Doc: 57 Filed: 06/06/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
*We decline to consider the arguments made for the first time

in Generali’s reply brief. See Cavallo v. Star Enter., 100 F.3d

1150, 1152 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (refusing to consider an issue first

raised in appellant’s reply brief, explaining that to consider the

issue “would be unfair to the appellee and would risk an

improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues raised”

(internal quotation marks omitted)).

- 4 -

Defendants to pay all sums that Coastal Exteriors becomes obligated

to pay as damages, but to pay those sums Coastal Exteriors becomes

legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or

property damage to which the insurance applies. Because Generali

presents no argument in its opening brief as to how the insurance

policies apply to claims made against a party who is not an insured

under the policies, we affirm the district court’s grant of partial

summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. See Fed. R. App. P.

28(a)(9)(A) (requiring argument section of brief to contain

“appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations

to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant

relies”); Williams v. Giant Food, Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th

Cir. 2004) (deeming abandoned issues not supported by argument in

appellate brief).*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-1215 Doc: 57 Filed: 06/06/2008 Pg: 4 of 4