Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02391/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02391-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
First Professionals Insurance Company
Appellee
Amy Moore

Richard Moore

Kyrsten E. Sutton
Appellant
The Medical Protective Company

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2391

FIRST PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KYRSTEN E. SUTTON, M.D.,

Defendant and 3rd-Party Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

AMY MOORE, As Parent and Guardian ad Litem for N. M., a

minor; RICHARD MOORE, As Parent and Guardian ad Litem for 

N. M., a minor,

Intervenors/Defendants,

v.

THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY,

Third-Party Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00194-RMG)

Argued: December 9, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Appeal: 15-2391 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: George J. Kefalos, GEORGE J. KEFALOS, P.A., Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas C. Salane, TURNER, 

PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. ON BRIEF: Oana D. Johnson, JANIK, LLP, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. R. Hawthorne Barrett, TURNER, 

PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2391 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

This case returns after a prior appeal and remand. It is a 

multiparty insurance coverage dispute arising under the 

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction involving two professional 

liability insurance policies issued to Appellant, Dr. Kyrsten E. 

Sutton. Familiarity with the prior appeal is assumed. See

First Prof’ls Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 607 F. App’x 276 (4th Cir. 

2015). 

Back before us after having substantially prevailed in the 

prior appeal by securing coverage under one of the two policies

at issue, Dr. Sutton presents the following issues (as 

rephrased) for our review from the district court’s adverse 

coverage determination as to the second of the two policies: 

I. Whether the district court erred, under South 

Carolina law, in its interpretation of an exclusion 

in the second insurance policy;

II. Whether the district court erred in its failure to 

find that the absence of expert testimony precluded 

a finding in favor of First Professionals Insurance 

Company;

III. Whether the district court erred, under South 

Carolina law, in its interpretation of a question 

contained in the application for insurance in 

respect to one of the policies at issue; and

IV. Whether the district court erred insofar as its

findings and conclusions contradicted a conclusion 

contained in this Court’s prior opinion.

Appeal: 15-2391 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Having had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, 

and having fully considered the parties’ contentions, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough 

memorandum opinion setting forth its findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. First Prof’ls Ins. Co. v. Sutton, No. 2:12-

cv-00194-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2015).

AFFIRMED 

Appeal: 15-2391 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/22/2016 Pg: 4 of 4