Fowler v. Hunter, 388 S.C. 355

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the reversal of summary judgment granted to an insurance agency in claims for professional negligence and equitable indemnification. The court held that the assigned professional-negligence claim could proceed because the settlement and covenant not to execute were not shown to be collusive, and that conflicting evidence regarding whether the requested coverage would have been issued created a genuine issue of material fact on Selective's damages. The court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of summary judgment on both claims.

Holdings

1. A professional-negligence claim assigned in connection with a settlement may proceed where the settlement is not collusive and the assignment does not eliminate the possibility of proving damages; the covenant not to execute did not, as a matter of law, require summary judgment for Insurance Associates.
2. Summary judgment was improper on Selective's equitable-indemnification claim because conflicting evidence regarding the insurer's guidelines created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Selective would have issued the requested automobile coverage and suffered damages from Insurance Associates' alleged negligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing summary judgment on the Fowlers' assigned professional-negligence claim when the settlement included a covenant not to execute.
2. Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing summary judgment on Selective's equitable-indemnification claim based on the absence of proof that Selective suffered damages.

Disposition

affirmed