Charleston Housewrecking Co., Inc. v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., 22156

• Decision Date: 15 August 1984
• Docket Number: No. 22156,22156
• Citation: 319 S.E.2d 338,282 S.C. 443
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: CHARLESTON HOUSEWRECKING COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. CANADIAN UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Page 338

319 S.E.2d 338

282 S.C. 443

CHARLESTON HOUSEWRECKING COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. CANADIAN UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 22156.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted June 14, 1984.

Decided Aug. 15, 1984.

Joseph R. Young, of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, Charleston, for appellant.

B.C. Killough, Charleston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Canadian Universal Insurance Company asserts the trial court erroneously denied its motion for summary judgment, contending it had no duty to defend respondent, Charleston Housewrecking Company, in an action for damages instituted by a third party.

We find appellant's sole exception to be in violation of Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6, as it does not contain a complete assignment of error. "This defect is sufficient to warrant dismissal of this appeal." Simmons v. Johnson, 279 S.C. 146, 303 S.E.2d 101, 102 (1983).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6.