Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith



Since our firm’s founding in 1929, we have been honored to represent some of the biggest names in insurance. Our industry leadership and proven track record have earned us a spot as the go-to state counsel for national insurers in a number of litigation matters. We understand that communication is of upmost importance when it comes to insurance coverage and bad faith matters, and counsel require sensible and straightforward guidance throughout the litigation process.

Our Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith Practice represents insurers, including policyholders and carriers. These clients keep us on as retained counsel so that we can better serve them with frequent coverage and claim handling advice, conducting examinations under oath, prosecuting and defending judgment actions, defending bad faith suits, and representing carriers in both administrative and executive matters.

Utilizing our deep knowledge and understanding of the legal issues impacting the industry, we provide quality work every time and exceed even the highest expectations. With a nod to our Southern roots, we have extensive experience in handling matters in both state and federal venues at both trial and appellate levels.

As a result of our commitment to putting our clients first, we are honored to have held a spot on A.M. Best Company’s list of recommended law firms for insurance matters for more than 85 years. 


  • Represented insurer interests in legislation as the South Carolina Legislative Counsel for the American Insurance Association. Our counsel to the South Carolina Commercial Automobile Insurance Plan, an industry volunteered residual market for commercial automobile insurance, including drafting the original plan documents, rules and application forms and advising Governing Board.
  • Represented innumerable insurers in administrative matters before the South Carolina and other state’s departments of insurance, including rate and form filings, administrative sanctions involving insurers and / or agents, unfair insurance trade practice claims, claims involving the administration of rehabilitations and liquidations, insurer expansion applications, agent and company licensing, declaring special dividends, surplus lines approvals, market conduct or audit examinations.
  • Defended automobile insurer by obtaining summary judgment in the U.S. District Court and prevailing on appeal in Rowzie v Allstate Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2009) case. We served as the appellate team when the plaintiffs attempted to pursue a class action against the carrier for its interpretation of the auto policy in offsetting Underinsured Motorist (UIM) payments by amounts previously paid under medical payments coverage.
  • Won dismissal of a class action lawsuit claiming excessive rate against an insurer and its state reinsurer, based upon the first judicial recognition of the fixed rate doctrine as applicable to insurance in South Carolina in the case of Edge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 366 S.C. 511, 623 S.E.2d 387 (2005).
  • Appeared as amicus curiae for the American Insurance Association and Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America on the rehearing of its appeal, and we won reversal of an adverse coverage determination that project damages due to contractor’s faulty workmanship constituted an “occurrence” under a CGL policy in the L-J, Inc. v. Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 366 S.C. 117, 621 S.E.2d 33 (2004) case.
  • Won reversal of bad faith and punitive damage jury verdict against insurer based on insurer’s alleged negligent nonrenewal of homeowner’s policy due to past claims and secured entry of judgment in favor of insurer in Hinkle v. National Cas. Co., 354 S.C. 92, 579 S.E.2d 616 (2003).
  • Obtained reversal of trial court’s order that underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier pay judgment when carrier was not served until after judgment was obtained. The ruling upheld the rights of underinsured motorist carriers to contest liability according to the UIM statute in Ex Parte Allstate Ins. Co., 339 S.C. 202, 528 S.E.2d 679 (Ct. App. 2000).
  • Represented a homeowner insurer in coverage determination that sexual molestation by insured is an “intentional act” and does not come within the definition of “occurrence,” persuading the state of South Carolina to adopt the “inferred intent” doctrine for acts of sexual predators in Manufacturers and Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 330 S.C. 152, 498 S.E.2d 222 (Ct. App. 1998).

A.M. Best Company Law Firm

Chambers USA Leading Lawyers