Walterboro Community Hospital, Inc. v. Meacher
392 S.C. 479
S.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Grant sued Colleton, Dr. Meacher, Meacher P.A., and CareFirst for medical malpractice related to March 10, 2000 ED visit and subsequent testicular torsion treatment.
- Colleton requested CareFirst to defend under section 4.1 of the Agreement; CareFirst refused to provide a defense.
- Grant settled with Colleton, Dr. Meacher, and Meacher P.A. for $100,000, with Colleton and Meacher each contributing $50,000; the settlement contained a broad release denying liability.
- Colleton filed a declaratory judgment action seeking equitable indemnification for its settlement costs and asserting CareFirst breached section 4.1.
- Circuit court found Colleton not entitled to equitable indemnification and declined Colleton’s contract-related relief; no Rule 52 findings were made on fault.
- On appeal, the court concluded Vermeer requirements were not met due to lack of fault findings and insufficient evidence; affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colleton is entitled to equitable indemnification | Colleton asserts Meacher fault; Colleton faultless; settlement should support indemnity. | No fault finding; Vermeer requirements not satisfied; settlement precluded indemnity. | No equitable indemnification due to lack of fault findings and evidence. |
| Whether CareFirst breached the Agreement by failing to provide a defense | CareFirst breached section 4.1 by not defending Colleton in Grant. | Grant alleged own negligence by Colleton; CareFirst’s duty to defend limited to vicarious/ostensible liability; no breach. | CareFirst did not breach; no defense duty triggered under facts; no remand. |
| Whether the nondelegable duty doctrine precludes Colleton's recovery | Nondelegable duty doctrine may support indemnity against fault. | Doctrine precludes recovery. | Affirmed; court declines to address further given other dispositive grounds. |
| Whether Colleton is precluded from equitable indemnification because insurance paid all costs | Insurance payment should not bar indemnity. | Payment of costs by insurer may bar indemnity. | Not necessary to address; decision rests on other grounds; affirmed. |
| Whether the contract claim was preserved for review | Colleton preserved breach claim. | Claim framed as indemnification; not properly preserved. | Preservation not satisfied; court did not remand; affirmed on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermeer Carolina's, Inc. v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp., 336 S.C. 53 (Ct.App. 1999) (elements for equitable indemnity: plaintiff fault, indemnitee exonerated, and indemnity proven by fault of indemnitor)
- Otis Elevator, Inc. v. Hardin Construction Co., 316 S.C. 292 (1994) (post-settlement fault findings influence indemnity rights; distinguishing scenarios)
- Griffin v. Van Norman, 302 S.C. 520 (Ct.App. 1990) (indemnity upheld when fault findings favor indemnitor after settlement terms)
- Hartsville v. South Carolina Municipal Insurance & Risk Financing Fund, 382 S.C. 535 (2009) (insurer duty to defend; policy coverage governs defense obligation)
- Luckabaugh (In re Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh), 351 S.C. 122 (2002) (trial court findings; Rule 52 requirements and appellate review scope)
- I’On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406 (2000) (appellate review and preservation principles; scope of review)
- Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299 (2010) (standard for appellate review of equitable vs. legal claims; burden of proof)
- Greenville County Fair Association v. Christenberry, 198 S.C. 338 (1941) (stipulations as law; binding effect limited)