Ex parte Hartford Fire v. Centex Homes

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Ex parte Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, BITCO General Insurance Corporation, Clarendon National Insurance Company, Harleysville Insurance Company n/k/a Nationwide Insurance Company, Selective Insurance Company, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, and First Mercury Insurance Company, Appellants, In re The Havens Condominium Association, Plaintiff, v. Centex Homes, et al., Defendants. The River Crossing Condominium Association, and Vincent J. Tamburro, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Centex Homes, et al., Defendants. The Tanglewood Condominium Association, Plaintiff, v. Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership, et al., Defendants. The Woodlands Condominium Association, Plaintiff, v. Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership, et al., Defendants, of which The Havens Condominium Association, The River Crossing Condominium Association, Vincent J. Tamburro, The Tanglewood Condominium Association, The Woodlands Condominium Association, and Centex Homes are the Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2019-001053 Appeal from Horry County Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2020-MO-011 Submitted October 15, 2020 – Filed October 21, 2020 AFFIRMED Robert C. Calamari, Matthew A. Abee, and Patrick F. O'Dea, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, of Columbia, for Appellants Harleysville Insurance Company, NKA Nationwide, and Selective Insurance Company; Clayton B. McCullough and Ross A. Appel, both of McCullough Khan, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company; Lawrence M. Hunter Jr., of Hunter & Foster, PA, of Greenville, for Appellant BITCO General Insurance Corporation; Neil S. Haldrup, of Wall Templeton & Haldrup, PA, of Charleston, and Thomas B. Boger, of the Pflug Law Firm, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, both for Appellant Clarendon National Insurance Company; John S. Wilkerson III and R. Hawthorne Barrett, both of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Charleston, for Appellants Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company and First Mercury Insurance Company; and Mark S. Barrow and Christy E. Mahon, both of Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, PA, of Columbia, and Steven M. Klepper, of Baltimore, Maryland, all for Appellants Hartford Casualty Insurance Company and Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Phillip W. Segui Jr. and Abigail Y. Bechtol, both of Segui Law Firm, of Mount Pleasant, John T. Chakeris, of The Chakeris Law Firm, of Charleston, and Shaun W. Cranford, of Cranford Law, of Columbia, all for Respondents The Havens Condominium Association, The River Crossing Condominium Association, Vincent J. Tamburro, The Tanglewood Condominium Association, and The Woodlands Condominium Association; and Amanda K. Anderson and Laura F. Locklair, both of Boyle, Leonard & Anderson, PA, of Charleston, all for Respondent Centex Homes. PER CURIAM: In this construction defect action, the trial court denied motions to intervene filed by a number of insurance companies, and the insurance companies appealed. We certified the appeal from the court of appeals pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR, and now affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Ex parte Builder's Mutual Ins. Co., --- S.C. ---, 847 S.E.2d 87 (2020) (holding (1) insurance companies are not entitled to intervene as a matter of right in a construction defect action; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the insurance companies permissive intervention; and (3) insurance companies have a right to contest coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy in a subsequent declaratory judgment action). AFFIRMED. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.