Isle of Palms Pest Control Company v. Monticello Insurance Company
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- L-J, Inc. v. Bituminous Fire & Marine Insurance (S.C. Ct. App. 2002)
- Auto Owners Ins. Co., Inc. v. Newman (S.C. 2009)
- Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. General Information Services, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2014)
- Twin City Fire Ins. v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 2000)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. GS Thadius LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2018)
- William v. Ass'n Insurance (S.C. Ct. App. 2012)
- Auto-Owners Insurance v. Rhodes (S.C. Ct. App. 2009)
- South Carolina Municipal Insurance & Risk Fund v. City of Myrtle Beach (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)
- Auto-Owners Insurance v. Carl Brazell Builders, Inc. (S.C. 2003)
- Century Indemnity Co. v. Golden Hills Builders, Inc. (S.C. 2002)
- B.L.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. First Financial Insurance (S.C. Ct. App. 1997)
- JW Aluminum Company v. ACE American Insurance Company (District Court, D. South Carolina 2023)
- Weeks & Irvine LLC v. Associated Industries Insurance Company Inc (District Court, D. South Carolina 2020)
- Dudek v. Commonwealth Land Title Company LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2020)
- Hanks v. Zenner (5th Cir. 2000)
- Liberty Life v. Travelers Indem Ill (4th Cir. 1999)
- Ins Co of NA CIGNA v. Baughman (4th Cir. 1997)
- Robertson v. Fowler (W. Va. 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. Isle of Palms Pest Control Co. v. Monticello Ins. Co., 319 S.C. 12, 459 S.E. (2d) 318 (Ct. App. 1994). We grant the writ on petitioner’s Question I because it involves a novel question, deny the writ as to the remaining questions, dispense with further briefing, and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In Question I, petitioner challenges the Court of Appeal’s holding that petitioner had a duty to defend and indemnify respondent in a third-party action because respondent’s failure to discover active termite infestation constituted a negligent inspection, and, therefore, any resulting damage to the home was an occurrence within the scope of the comprehensive general liability policy issued by petitioner. We agree with the reasoning and holding of the Court of Appeals on this issue. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.