Reeves ex rel. Estate of Reeves v. S.C. Mun. Ins. & Risk Fin. Fund [Scmirf]

• Decision Date: 01 May 2019
• Docket Number: Opinion No. 5643,Appellate Case No. 2016-001626
• Citation: 427 S.C. 613,832 S.E.2d 312
• Parties: Ashley REEVES as Personal Representative for the Estate of Albert Carl "Bert" Reeves, Respondent/Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE AND RISK FINANCING FUND [SCMIRF], Appellant/Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

427 S.C. 613

832 S.E.2d 312

Ashley REEVES as Personal Representative for the Estate of Albert Carl "Bert" Reeves, Respondent/Appellant,

v.SOUTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE AND RISK FINANCING FUND [SCMIRF], Appellant/Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001626

Opinion No. 5643

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted December 6, 2018

Filed May 1, 2019

Rehearing Denied September 19, 2019

C. Mitchell Brown and Brian P. Crotty, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellant/Respondent.

W. Mullins McLeod, Jr. and Jacqueline LaPan Edgerton, both of McLeod Law Group LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent/Appellant.

WILLIAMS, J.:

In this declaratory judgment action, the South Carolina Municipal Insurance and Risk Financing Fund (SCMIRF) appeals the portion of the circuit court's order entering judgment in favor of Ashley Reeves (Reeves), Personal Representative of the Estate of Albert Carl Reeves (Bert Reeves), regarding indemnity coverage under a pooled self-insurance liability fund (the Coverage Contract). SCMIRF argues the circuit court erred in (1) finding Reeves was entitled to more than $1,000,000 in indemnity coverage under the Coverage Contract's terms; (2) failing to analyze the coverage issue exclusively under the Coverage Contract's "Personal Injury" provisions; (3) finding because there were separate wrongful death and survivorship action claims with different measures of damages there was more than $1,000,000 in indemnity coverage available under the Coverage Contract; and (4) finding an ambiguity in the Coverage Contract as to whether "Occurrence" is defined by different acts of negligence or the resulting damage. Reeves cross-appeals the portion of the circuit court's order entering judgment in favor of SCMIRF regarding the South Carolina Tort Claims Act¹ (the Act). Reeves asserts (1) SCMIRF is not subject to the Act because SCMIRF is a not political subdivision of South Carolina; and (2) the Act is inapplicable to, and does not limit the recovery in, a breach of contract claim. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The parties stipulated to the facts of this case. The action before this Court stemmed from numerous lawsuits related to insurance coverage concerning the shooting death of Bert Reeves. On May 16, 2011, Randall Price, a police officer with the Town of Cottageville Police Department (the Police Department) shot and killed Bert Reeves while Price was acting in the course and scope of his employment.

The Town of Cottageville (Cottageville) entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement for an Insurance and Risk Financing Fund for Risk Sharing with SCMIRF and in doing so, Cottageville became a member of SCMIRF.² Cottageville and SCMIRF entered into the Coverage Contract, whereby SCMIRF provided liability coverage to Cottageville pursuant to the terms and limitations set forth in the Coverage Contract. The Coverage Contract provided liability coverage for Cottageville, as the "Member" named in the declarations page; the Police Department, as "the law enforcement department of the Member named;" and Price and John Craddock—the Police Department Chief of Police—"the individual law enforcement officers," as "Covered Persons."

On August 28, 2012, Reeves filed a lawsuit in the circuit court against Cottageville; the Police Department; and Price, individually (the Cottageville Action). The Cottageville Action was a survivorship and wrongful death action that alleged Cottageville, the Police Department, and Price were negligent in the death of Bert Reeves; Cottageville and the Police Department were negligent in the hiring, supervision, and retention of Price; and Cottageville, the Police Department, and Price violated Bert Reeves's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). Pursuant to the Coverage Contract, SCMIRF retained attorneys to defended Cottageville and Price in the Cottageville Action. On September 25, 2012, the Cottageville Action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. On October 15, 2014, the jury in the Cottageville Action rendered a verdict in Reeves's favor finding Price liable for negligence; Cottageville liable for negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and training of Price; and both liable under Section 1983. The jury awarded Reeves actual damages of $7,500,000 against both Cottageville and Price; and punitive damages of $60,000,000 against Cottageville and $30,000,000 against Price. On October 21, 2014, a judgment was entered in the Cottageville Action based on the jury verdict.

On February 18, 2014, Reeves filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit in the circuit court against SCMIRF; Cottageville; the Police Department; and Price, individually (the Declaratory Judgment Action). The Declaratory Judgment Action sought a declaration that the Coverage Contract provided $1,000,000 in coverage for each independent, separate act of negligence, relating to the claims asserted in the Cottageville Action, thus resulting in the Coverage Contract providing for more than $1,000,000 in coverage.

On May 14, 2014, Reeves filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina against Craddock (the Craddock Action). The Craddock Action asserted survivorship and wrongful death claims based on Section 1983. The suit alleged Craddock failed to properly train and supervise Price, failed to intervene in the altercation between Price and Bert Reeves, and failed to render medical care to Bert Reeves.

On February 26, 2015, Reeves, SCMIRF, Price, and Craddock entered into a settlement agreement which settled both the Cottageville Action and the Craddock Action. On April 20, 2015, as part of the settlement, Reeves filed a partial stipulation of dismissal leaving SCMIRF as the only respondent in the present action. The settlement agreement stipulated Reeves and SCMIRF would litigate "the following two issues, and only these two issues" to resolve all claims arising from the Cottageville and Craddock Actions:

(1) Do the claims made and the verdict rendered against the Town of Cottageville and Randall Price, relating to the hiring, retention, supervision[,] and shooting death of Bert Reeves result in there being more than $1,000,000.00 in indemnity coverage available under the terms of the SCMIRF Coverage Contract with the Town of Cottageville with respect to all such claims including the claims made against John Craddock in the separately styled action referenced above? Reeves asserts there is more than one occurrence based on the facts and claims and the jury's verdict relating to the hiring, retention, supervision[,] and shooting death of Bert Reeves, and, thus, there is more than $1,000,000.00 in indemnity coverage available under the Coverage Contract. SCMIRF asserts the Coverage Contract is limited to a total of $1,000,000.00 in indemnity coverage.

(2) Allegations have been made that SCMIRF has engaged in bad faith with regard to its handling of the claims relating to the shooting and death of Bert Reeves. SCMIRF denies it has engaged in bad faith. SCMIRF was informed that any bad faith claims that exist in favor of Cottageville would be assigned to Reeves. Would a tort claim for bad faith brought against SCMIRF be subject to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act ( S.C. Code. Ann. § 15-78-10 et seq . ), assuming such a claim were otherwise valid? SCMIRF asserts it would. Respondent Reeves asserts otherwise.

The settlement further stipulated Reeves would receive an additional $1,000,000 for each issue found in Reeves's favor. If Reeves did not prevail on either issue, Reeves would not receive any additional funds aside from the $10,000,000 settlement payment previously paid under the settlement agreement.

The parties jointly petitioned our supreme court to decide both issues in the court’s original jurisdiction. Our supreme court declined the petition. Subsequently, Reeves filed an amended complaint in the circuit court setting forth the two stipulated issues in the settlement agreement and sought a declaration as to the interpretation of the Coverage Contract. SCMIRF filed an answer, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment regarding the stipulated issues.

The circuit court held a hearing on the cross-summary judgment motions. As to the first stipulated issue, the circuit court granted Reeves's summary judgment motion and denied SCMIRF’s motion. The circuit court found the claims made and the verdict rendered in the Cottageville Action, and the claims made in the Craddock Action, resulted in more than $1,000,000 in indemnity coverage under the Coverage Contract. Specifically, the circuit court found, "there is ambiguity as to whether ‘occurrence’ is defined by different acts of negligence or the resulting damage." The circuit court noted the Cottageville Action "sought to recover damages for wrongful death, as well as conscious pain and suffering," and "the measure of damages for a wrongful death claim and a claim for conscious pain and suffering are different." The circuit court concluded Reeves "suffered separate and distinct damages which could lead to additional coverage under the separate causes of action." As to the second stipulated issue, the circuit court granted SCMIRF's motion for summary judgment and denied Reeves's motion. The circuit court found a tort claim for bad faith brought against SCMIRF was subject to the Act.

Thereafter, Reeves and SCMIRF each filed motions to alter or amend the judgment. The circuit court denied both motions. This cross-appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Rule 56(c), SCRCP, summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The questions before us in this appeal are questions of law. See S.C. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Town of McClellanville , 345 S.C. 617, 623, 550 S.E.2d 299, 302–03 (2001) ("It is a question of law for the court whether...