UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES L. HIGGINS, as Assignee of

Robert W. Mitchell,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-1489

AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

CHARLES L. HIGGINS, as Assignee of

Robert W. Mitchell,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-1654

AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CA-94-3498-3-23)

Argued: April 9, 1997

Decided: May 6, 1997

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Rolf Mouin Baghdady, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellant. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, ELLIS, LAWHORNE,

DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In this dispute involving insurance coverage, the plaintiff, Charles

Higgins, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in

favor of the defendant, American States Insurance Company (American States), the liability insurance carrier for Robert W. Mitchell,

d/b/a Marine Construction (Mitchell). The district court granted

American States' motion for summary judgment on the basis that the

physical injury to Higgins' boat slips manifested itself outside the

coverage period for the American States policy issued to Mitchell and

American States was not estopped from denying coverage. We agree

with the district court and affirm.

I.

American States issued general liability insurance coverage to

Mitchell for a policy period--August 6, 1984, through August 6,

1986. In April 1985, Higgins, the owner and operator of Holland's

Landing marina located on Lake Murray in South Carolina, contracted with Mitchell to construct boat slips for Higgins' dock. The

construction was completed during the period Mitchell was covered

by the American States policy.

During the time Mitchell was building the slips for Higgins, Mitchell contacted American States agent John Brownlee to verify cover-

 2
age. Brownlee told Mitchell that the American States policy would

protect Mitchell against any products liability and/or negligent construction claims. Accordingly, Mitchell did not obtain any additional

insurance coverage.

On January 7, 1988, snow and ice, which had built up on the roofs

of the twenty-four boat slips constructed by Mitchell, caused the boat

slip roofs to collapse. As a result of the collapse, Higgins lost $40,800

in rental revenue due to his inability to rent the damaged boat slips,

incurred a cost of $12,670 to repair the boats docked in the damaged

slips, and had to expend $55,003 in order to construct replacement

slips. Accordingly, Higgins brought a negligence action in the Court

of Common Pleas for Newberry County against Mitchell. The state

court awarded Higgins $108,473 in compensatory damages and an

additional $191,526 because Mitchell's conduct was grossly negligent

and reckless. American States refused to pay the judgment against

Mitchell or even participate in the state court litigation because,

according to American States, the boat slip roofs collapsed after the

liability insurance policy expired.

Mitchell assigned all his claims against American States to Higgins

and Higgins then filed suit against American States in the Court of

Common Pleas for Newberry County on December 2, 1994. American States removed the action to the United States District Court for

the District of South Carolina. On March 29, 1996, the district court

granted summary judgment to American States on the ground that the

injury to Higgins' boat slips did not manifest itself until after Mitchell's insurance policy expired. The district court also found that

American States was not estopped from denying coverage as a result

of Brownlee's statement to Mitchell that the American States policy

would protect Mitchell against any products liability and/or negligent

construction claims. Higgins appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment.*

_________________________________________________________________

*American States cross-appealed, asserting alternative grounds for

upholding the district court's grant of summary judgment against Higgins. Because we find the reasoning of the district court persuasive and

dispositive of the appeal, we need not address the merits of American

States' cross-appeal.

 3
II.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.

See Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43

F.3d 922, 928 (4th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment is appropriate

when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Mitchell's insurance policy with American States covered, among

other things, property damage. The term "property damage" is defined

as:

(1) physical injury to . . . tangible property which occurs

during the policy period . . . or

(2) loss of use of tangible property . . . provided such loss

of use is caused by an occurrence during the policy period.

(J.A. 132) (emphasis added). In this case, the roofs of the boat slips

collapsed on January 7, 1988, whereas Mitchell's coverage under the

American States policy terminated on August 6, 1986.

The district court granted summary judgment to American States

based on the theory that only property damage occurring during the

policy period was covered by the American States policy. In reaching

its conclusion, the district court noted that South Carolina has adopted

the "manifestation rule" unless the insurance policy clearly dictates

otherwise. See Spinx Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 427

S.E.2d 649, 651 (S.C. 1993); Mraz v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co.,

Ltd., 804 F.2d 1325 (4th Cir. 1986). Under the manifestation rule,

"`the time of the occurrence of an accident within the meaning of

[the] . . . policy is not the time the wrongful act was committed but

the time when the complaining party was actually damaged.'" See id.

at 1328 (quoting United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. American Ins.

Co., 345 N.E.2d 267, 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976)). We agree with the

district court that, under the manifestation rule, Mitchell was no longer covered by the American States policy when Higgins' boat slip

 4
roofs collapsed because the property damage occurred outside the

policy period.

Higgins also claims that American States should be estopped from

denying coverage under Mitchell's liability insurance policy because

of the statement made by Brownlee to Mitchell regarding coverage of

the American States policy. The district court concluded that Mitchell's belief that he was covered by American States' policy did not

provide a sufficient basis for an equitable estoppel claim by Higgins.

Pursuant to South Carolina law, the elements of estoppel are: (1)

ignorance of the truth of the matter in question by the party invoking

estoppel; (2) a representation by the party estopped of that party's

position on the matter; (3) reasonable reliance by the relying party on

the estopped party's representation; and (4) a prejudicial change of

position. See Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Driver, 451 S.E.2d

924, 928 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994). Brownlee's statement to Mitchell is

of no help to Higgins. Based on the language in the insurance policy

--specifically, the definition of "property damage"--it was not reasonable for Mitchell to rely on Brownlee's statement regarding coverage for the conclusion that Mitchell was covered for occurrences

taking place beyond the policy period. With that in mind, the district

court appropriately rejected Higgins' equitable estoppel claim.

III.

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court's grant

of summary judgment to American States.

AFFIRMED

 5