USAA Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rowland
| Decision Date | 07 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 2074,2074 |
| Citation | 312 S.C. 536,435 S.E.2d 879 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | USAA PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Donald M. ROWLAND and James R. Carter, Respondents. . Heard |
John U. Bell, III, C. Mitchell Brown and Susan M. Glenn, all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for appellant.
Robert J. Thomas, of Sherrill & Rogers; and Harvey L. Golden, Columbia, for respondents.
USAA Property and Casualty Insurance Company brought this action for a declaratory judgment against Donald M. Rowland and James R. Carter to determine whether a standard homeowner's policy issued by USAA to Rowland required USAA to defend Rowland in an alienation of affections action brought by Carter against Rowland. The trial court declared USAA had a duty to defend Rowland in the action. 1 USAA appeals. We reverse.
In his action for alienation of affections, Carter's amended complaint alleges he suffered "bodily injury" because Rowland "wrongfully, intentionally, maliciously, negligently, and unlawfully" pursued Carter's wife so as to gain her affections and attention. The prayer of Carter's complaint asks for $500,000 in actual and punitive damages.
Rowland requested USAA enter a defense on his behalf under a homeowner's policy that he had purchased from USAA. USAA responded with a reservation of rights letter. Shortly afterward, it filed the instant action.
Rowland's homeowner's policy provides that "[i]f a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury ... caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies, [USAA] will:
....
2. [P]rovide a defense at USAA's expense by a counsel of [USAA's] choice...."
The policy defines "occurrence," so far as is pertinent here, as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially
the same general harmful conditions, which results ... in ... [b]odily injury...." Also, an exclusion in the policy provides "[p]ersonal liability and [c]overage ... do not apply to bodily injury ... which is expected or intended by the insured[.]"
Whether USAA has any obligation under Rowland's homeowner's policy to defend Rowland in an action brought against him for alienation of affections.
In Rivers v. Rivers, 292 S.C. 21, 354 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1987), this court listed the basic elements of the cause of action for alienation of affections. They are: (1) wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant; (2) the plaintiff's loss of affection or consortium with his or her spouse; and (3) a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's loss. Id. at 29, 354 S.E.2d at 788.
The "wrongful conduct" required by the first element "cannot be predicated on mere negligence...." 2 S.C.Juris. Alienation of Affection § 7, at 89 (1991); see also W. KEETON, D. DOBBS, R. KEETON, AND D. OWEN, PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 124, at 920 (5th ed. 1984) ( ); 7 S. SPEISER, C. KRAUSE, & A. GANS, THE AMERICAN LAW OF TORTS, Alienation of Affections § 22.2, at 544 (1990) ( ); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS § 683 cmt. g (1977) (the cause of action for alienation of affections requires "active and affirmative conduct," "some act on the part of the defendant intended to induce or accomplish the result"). Rather, the "wrongful conduct" "must be intentional, malicious, or so inherently wrong as to authorize an inference that a wrong was intended." 2 S.C.Juris. supra; see also Blaylock v. Strecker, 291 Ark. 340, 724 S.W.2d 470 (1987) (); O'Neil v. Schuckardt, 112 Idaho 472, 733 P.2d 693 (1986) (); Duval v. Wiggin, 124 N.H. 550, 474 A.2d 1002 (1984) (); Wilson v. Aylward, 207 Kan. 254, 484 P.2d 1003 (1971) (); Gibson v. Frowein, 400 S.W.2d 418 (Mo.1966) (); Pedersen v. Jirsa, 267 Minn. 48, 125 N.W.2d 38 (1963) (); McNelis v. Bruce, 90 Ariz. 261, 367 P.2d 625 (1961) (); Tice v. Mandel, 76 N.W.2d 124 (N.D.1956) (); Lewis v. Bauer, 198 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio Ct.App.1964) (). By definition, then, "an allegation of alienation of affection[s] constitutes a claim that someone has intentionally inflicted an injury or damage." Eberdt v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 36 Or.App. 679, 585 P.2d 711, 713 (1978).
Although USAA's policy defines the term "occurrence," it does not define the word "accident." In the absence of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MFRS. AND MERCHANTS MUT. INS. v. Harvey
...be defined according to the usual understanding of the term's significance to the ordinary person. USAA Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Rowland, 312 S.C. 536, 435 S.E.2d 879 (Ct.App.1993). The South Carolina Supreme Court has interpreted the term "accident" to mean "an effect which the ac......
-
Northern Sec. Ins. Co. v. Perron
...defined according to the usual understanding of the term's significance to the ordinary person. See USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rowland, 312 S.C. 536, 435 S.E.2d 879, 881-82 (Ct.App.1993) (absent prescribed definition in policy, "accident" must be defined according to ordinary and usual u......
-
Home Insurance Com. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
...at 136; Manufacturers & Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 330 S.C. 152, 498 S.E.2d 222, 225 (1998); USAA Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rowland, 312 S.C. 536, 435 S.E.2d 879, 881-82 (1993). In Stevenson v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 265 S.C. 348, 218 S.E.2d 427, 429 (1975), the court not......
-
Sunex Intern., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...must be strained beyond its plain, ordinary meaning in order to include patent infringement. See USAA Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rowland, 312 S.C. 536, 435 S.E.2d 879, 881-82 (1993)(explaining that in the absence of a prescribed definition in an insurance policy term, the term should be ......