Madison B. Suttie
Associate / Charleston
Madison is an Associate in the Charleston office where she focuses her practice in the area of general civil litigation, including construction litigation, coverage disputes, and automobile and motor carrier accidents.
Prior to law school, Madison attended Sewanee: The University of the South, majoring in Psychology. Madison graduated magna cum laude from the University Of South Carolina School Of Law in 2013. During law school, Madison earned CALI Awards in Property and Income Taxation and served as Associate Managing Editor of the South Carolina Law Review.
Jury Favors Defendant in Moped Crash (Alleged Bad Faith Case)
December 2, 2016
Jack Daniel and Madison Suttie successfully defended an automobile driver involved in a collision with a moped driver. The case was tried because Plaintiff moped driver’s medical bills exceeded $100,000 and his attorneys postured the case as an insurance bad faith claim, contending that the carrier missed a deadline to pay policy limits. The Plaintiff sustained a severe leg fracture, requiring surgery. Plaintiff also sought damages for a brain injury, which was disputed based upon medical testimony. Plaintiff argued that the Defendant made an illegal left turn directly into the path of his moped. The case was defended on the issue of moped lighting and whether it was visible at night when the collision occurred. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for an award in excess of a million dollars at trial. After hearing competing testimony and arguments on liability and the moped lighting issue, the jury decided that Plaintiff moped driver was 55% liable, barring any damages under South Carolina law. In arguing the case, Jack and Madison strategically conceded partial fault on the part of the Defendant automobile driver while maintaining their client was less than 50% responsible. Based on the court’s instructions and verdict form, the jury was fully aware that finding Plaintiff more than 50% liable for his own injuries would bar him from recovering any damages. The Defendant’s insurance carrier had been willing to pay policy limits before suit was ever filed.
For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.
Carlock Copeland Charleston Office Participated in Habitat for Humanity Build – April 27, 2019
April 27, 2019
Carlock Copeland Charleston attorneys, once again, participated in a Charleston-area Habitat for Humanity build on April 27, 2019. Spearheaded by partner Tyler Winton, Carlock Copeland has developed a long-standing relationship with the Charleston-area Habitat for Humanity Organization, giving back to our local communities by participating in area builds at least twice a year. For more information on Habitat for Humanity in your area, please click here.
Madison Suttie Authors Column for DRI: Women in the Law Newsletter
Madison Suttie authors a recurring column for Women in the Law, a subcommittee of DRI, for their bi-annual newsletter: Sharing Success. Madison’s column Women Rainmaker Q&A spotlights prominent women in the legal industry to highlight their accomplishments and discuss issues unique to women as they develop their legal career. Click here to read Madison’s column or learn more about DRI and its’ Women in the Law subcommittee.
Publications and Presentations
Excess Insurer U.S. Fire Insurance Co. Urges Fifth Circuit to Affirm District Court Finding that Faulty Work Award is Not Covered Under Excess Policy – Insurance Coverage Corner Blog Post by Madison Suttie
March 7, 2018
Insurance Coverage Corner Blog Post by Madison Suttie. U.S. Fire Insurance Co. (“U.S. Fire”) is requesting that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirm a district court’s ruling that an $8 million arbitration award for repairs necessitated by faulty construction is not covered under its excess liability policy. U.S. Fire Insurance Co. (“U.S. Fire”) is requesting that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirm a district court’s ruling that an $8 million arbitration award for repairs necessitated by faulty construction is not covered under its excess liability policy. The insurance coverage dispute arises out of the alleged deficient construction of a courthouse in Zapata County, Texas, by Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. (“S&P”). Arbitration of the underlying claims resulted in an $8 million judgment against S&P, allocated as follows: $6,072,000.00 in compensatory damages; $1,500,000 in attorneys’ fees; $430,458 in pre-judgment interest; and $29,909.74 in arbitration fees. S&P sought contractual indemnity from each of its subcontractors and ultimately obtained $4,492,500 in settlements with their subcontractors. S&P then sought coverage from its primary commercial general liability insurer, American Guarantee & Liability insurance Company (“AGLIC”), and its umbrella liability insurer, U.S. Fire, for the remaining balance of the judgment. U.S. Fire refused to pay any portion of the remaining judgment on the ground that applying non-covered amounts under the excess policy to the subcontractor settlements was improper. U.S. Fire’s excess policy contained a “Fungi and Bacteria Exclusion,” and the excess insurer took the position that after subtracting the attorney’s fees, arbitration fees, prejudgment interest, and portions of the award attributed to mold remediation, there remained $3,240,000 of potentially covered claims – less than the subcontractor settlements plus the underlying coverage limits. S&P, AGLIC, and Amerisure then sued U.S. Fire in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In its June 1, 2017 order granting U.S. Fire’s motion for summary judgment, the district court held that no loss reaches the excess layer of insurance. The district court reasoned that the subcontractor settlements were structured as “undifferentiated general releases” and failed to allocate the settlement money between covered and non-covered damages under the excess policy. The court concluded that “allocating the settlement money it received only to uncovered harms” and then pursuing reimbursement from the excess carrier was an attempt to “manufacture a covered loss.” In so holding, the court noted that Texas courts “generally put the burden on the insured to identify the portion of a liability or loss that was produced by a covered condition.” On November 6, 2017, S&P and Amerisure appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. They argue that there is no basis in the U.S. Fire policy to apply its terms, conditions and exclusions to reduce the amount of the subcontractor settlements, as those settlements were made pursuant to indemnification obligations arising out of S&P’s subcontracts and were not the product of insurance coverage for S&P. Additionally, S&P contends that it was not required to allocate between covered and non-covered damages in the subcontractor settlements. In its reply brief filed on January 5, 2018, U.S. Fire urged the Fifth Circuit to affirm summary judgment. The appeal remains pending. However, this dispute is an important reminder to contractors and insurers alike to 1) carefully consider the terms of a settlement agreement and 2) determine whether the jurisdiction in which any dispute of the agreement’s terms would be litigated requires identification of the portion of a liability or loss that was produced by a covered condition. Does anyone else think that this sounds a good bit like the recent D.R. Horton v. Builder First Source decision in South Carolina? D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Builders FirstSource - Se. Grp., LLC, No. 5529, 2018 S.C. App. LEXIS 2, at *13 (Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2018). The case is Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. and Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., Case Number 17-20513, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We will follow the case and update this blog post after the Fifth Circuit’s decision. To subscribe to our Insurance Coverage Corner Blog, please click here.