UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2391
FIRST PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KYRSTEN E. SUTTON, M.D.,
Defendant and 3rd-Party Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
AMY MOORE, As Parent and Guardian ad Litem for N. M., a
minor; RICHARD MOORE, As Parent and Guardian ad Litem for
N. M., a minor,
Intervenors/Defendants,
v.
THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY,
Third-Party Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (2:12-cv-00194-RMG)
Argued: December 9, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016
Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: George J. Kefalos, GEORGE J. KEFALOS, P.A., Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas C. Salane, TURNER,
PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Oana D. Johnson, JANIK, LLP, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. R. Hawthorne Barrett, TURNER,
PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
This case returns after a prior appeal and remand. It is a
multiparty insurance coverage dispute arising under the
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction involving two professional
liability insurance policies issued to Appellant, Dr. Kyrsten E.
Sutton. Familiarity with the prior appeal is assumed. See
First Prof’ls Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 607 F. App’x 276 (4th Cir.
2015).
Back before us after having substantially prevailed in the
prior appeal by securing coverage under one of the two policies
at issue, Dr. Sutton presents the following issues (as
rephrased) for our review from the district court’s adverse
coverage determination as to the second of the two policies:
I. Whether the district court erred, under South
Carolina law, in its interpretation of an exclusion
in the second insurance policy;
II. Whether the district court erred in its failure to
find that the absence of expert testimony precluded
a finding in favor of First Professionals Insurance
Company;
III. Whether the district court erred, under South
Carolina law, in its interpretation of a question
contained in the application for insurance in
respect to one of the policies at issue; and
IV. Whether the district court erred insofar as its
findings and conclusions contradicted a conclusion
contained in this Court’s prior opinion.
3
Having had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument,
and having fully considered the parties’ contentions, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough
memorandum opinion setting forth its findings of fact and
conclusions of law. First Prof’ls Ins. Co. v. Sutton, No. 2:12-
cv-00194-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2015).
AFFIRMED
4