Sarah Wetmore and Matt Hemingway successfully briefed, argued and obtained a dismissal of all claims against their client in a case where the Plaintiffs may have been statutorily entitled to treble damages. The Court dismissed the lawsuit as improper under Rule 14(a), SCRCP and also held that the Plaintiffs had failed to file their Complaint(s) against the client within the applicable Statute of Limitations.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Sarah Wetmore prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in Charleston County. Her client was dismissed from a multi-family construction defect case with millions of dollars in damages being claimed by the plaintiffs. Despite plaintiffs' expert's opposing Affidavits, the Court agreed with Sarah's arguments based on the language in her client's contract and granted the motion.  Jack Daniel  assisted with the handling of the case.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Sarah Wetmore successfully negotiated and settled on behalf of her subcontractor client in a complex, multi-million dollar construction defect case involving facilities at a local hospital. Pending motions filed on behalf of her client regarding statute of limitations and statute of repose defenses, and strong expert witness support played a role in reaching a resolution.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Sarah Wetmore successfully defended a golf course in a slip and fall action. Following jury selection and opening arguments, plaintiffs accepted the settlement offer made before trial to resolve their dispute. The trial would have lasted one to two weeks and the defense was prepared to offer compelling testimony from an engineer, a human factors expert and a physician, in addition to numerous directors and employees of the golf course.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Sarah Wetmore and Jack Daniel successfully obtained the dismissal of claims raised against a non-profit organization and two of its employees. The case involved wide array of claims against the non-profit, its attorney, and staff member for the organization. The trial court dismissed the claims against non-profit and its employees after multiple hearings in which Jack Daniel and co-counsel with another law firm argued for the clients. The case primarily hinged on the non-profits role as a legal advisor and the Court found that the Plaintiff could not bring claims against the non-profit (or its employees) for actions carried out in that capacity.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Sarah Wetmore obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a legal malpractice action in South Carolina state court. The Plaintiff maintained that a Charleston lawyer and his firm wrongly deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to participate in the settlement of a lawsuit arising out of his minor child's death in which the lawyer represented the child's mother. The Court held that the Defendants were immune from liability to the Plaintiff because they never represented him. The Court also determined that the Plaintiff failed to file the requisite expert affidavit and to plead the proper elements of an Unfair Trade Practices Act cause of action. The Motion was argued on May 9, 2012 in Marion, South Carolina in front of Judge Anthony Russo.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Sarah Wetmore represented an architectural firm in a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by Charleston County relating to the construction of the county's new judicial center.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

Sarah Wetmore obtained a favorable settlement for an architectural firm in a claim brought by a general contractor for over $1,000,000 in alleged cost overruns arising out of the construction of the city's newly constructed municipal center.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.

The SCDTAA's Women in Law Commitee hosted the seminar, Can We Really Have It All? on May 9, 2019 in Charleston, SC.  Beginning at 2:00 pm, this program highlighted on success in the workplace, the challenges that are unique to the working woman, "work-life balance" and more.  Sarah Wetmore Butler spoke alongside others and offered insight, advice and personal accounts in an open discussion with the audience. Sarah was elected as an Officer of the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association (SCDTAA) in 2017. For more information on the SCDTAA and this seminar, click here.

Sarah Wetmore and Laura Paton presented on panels at the 2017 Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) & Business Insurance's Construction Conference on October 9-11, 2017 in San Diego, CA.  Laura presented No Reservations: Crafting a Reservation of Rights Letter After Harleysville v. Heritage. Sarah presented Navigating the Settlement Agreement.

Carlock, Copeland & Stair hosted their annual Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith Seminar on August 24 at the Atlanta Botanical Garden. Presentations and Presenters: Have Traditional Rules Gone Up in Smoke?  Impact of Growing Legalization of Medical Marijuana - Dave Root and Abby Grozine. Best Practices for Maintaining Your Claims File - Ryan Wilhelm, Jennifer Guerra, and Claire Sumner. Defending the Institutional Bad Faith Claim - Charlie McDaniel and Kathy Carlsten. New Technology, Old Policies:  Are Aging Policies Equipped to Handle the Consumer Technology Boom? - Fred Valz and Melissa Bailey. Apportionment:  Has It Gotten Insurers Where They Want To Go?  - Charlie McDaniel, Graham Thompson, and Kristen Thompson. Additional Insured Jeopardy - Alex Davis, Laura Paton, Sarah Wetmore, Sally Bright and Nick Stewart. Why the Involvement of a Tractor Trailer Escalates a Case - Gary Lovell. Risk-Averse Insurers and the New Juror:  Exploring Possible Links Between Fewer Trials, Millennial Jurors, and Seemingly Bigger Verdicts - Doug Smith and Lee Weatherly. Please contact Michelle Mattox at mmattox@cskl.law if you would like our attorneys to present in-house lunch & learn sessions or webinars.  

Laura Paton and Sarah Wetmore attended Claims and Litigation Management Alliance's Greater Atlanta Chapter Educational & Networking Event on May 3rd.  The event was hosted by CLM's Diversity in Construction Claims Committee and co-sponsored by Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP. Please click here for more event information or to register.  

Kent Stair, Bill Jones and the Design Professional Group presented How to Avoid, Manage and Resolve Claims Against Design Professionals and led a discussion regarding claims against design professionals which included advice on the best practices to avoid claims, how to handle claims when they cannot be avoided, and the various ways to resolve claims. This event was held at the Cobb Energy Centre on November 17. Please contact Patty O'Toole at potoole@cskl.law for more information.  

Partner Sarah Wetmore was on the planning committee for the 2016 SCDTAA annual meeting held from November 10-12 in Greensboro, Georgia. Several Carlock Copeland & Stair, LLP partners presented and were in attendance. The meeting was attended by defense attorneys and judges from around South Carolina. Lee Weatherly presented Preparing a Client to Testify - Taking Your Game to the Next Level. Gary Lovell presented Medical Malpractice Tort Reform: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? Gary's presentation centered around the current state of the notice of intent to file suit proceedings, the obstetrical and emergency medicine exception to standard of care, and noneconomic damage caps.

SC Lawyer article by Laura Paton, Sarah Wetmore and Clinton Magill on the possible uses of Fitbit data cited by the Wall Street Journal in Law Blog.  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog is entitled, Prosecutors Say Fitbit Device Exposed Fibbing in Rape Case. Laura Paton, Sarah Wetmore, and Clinton Magill's article entitled, "How Wearable Fitness Devices Could Impact Personal Injury in South Carolina" was published in the January 2016 SC Lawyer publication.  SC Lawyer is a publication of the South Carolina Bar. With the emergence of the wearable fitness device market comes an increase in personalized health and fitness data for discovery and investigation on using information from fitness devices in personal injury litigation. Laura Paton is of counsel and Sarah Wetmore is a partner in the Charleston office of Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP.  Clinton T. Magill is an associate in the Atlanta office. With express permission to reprint by SC Lawyer Magazine, January 2016 Edition©.

Article by Laura Paton, Sarah Wetmore and Clinton Magill on the possible uses of Fitbit data cited by the Wall Street Journal in Law Blog.  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog is entitled, Prosecutors Say Fitbit Device Exposed Fibbing in Rape Case.

Dave Root, Angela Kopet, Lee Weatherly, Sarah Wetmore, and Patrick Norris attended the CLM Annual Meeting being held in Orlando, FL from April 6-8, 2016.

South Carolina Lawyers Weekly hosted the eighth annual Leadership in Law awards event on March 10, 2016.  Sarah Wetmore received the 2016 South Carolina Leadership in Law Award.  The event recognizes legal professionals from across the Palmetto State who have achieved success in their law practice, made contributions to society and have had an impact on the legal industry. Sarah Wetmore, Laura Paton, Madison Suttie, Matt Hemingway, Nick Stewart, Jack Daniel and The Honorable Lenna Kirchner, a "CCS Alumn," were all at the CC&S table.

Sarah Wetmore and Paul Sperry attended the 1st Annual National Defect Conference held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on Nov. 19-20, 2015.  

Congratulations to Sarah Wetmore for her South Carolina 2016 Leadership in Law Award. South Carolina Lawyers Weekly hosted the eighth annual Leadership in Law awards event on March 10, 2016.  Sarah Wetmore received the 2016 South Carolina Leadership in Law Award.  The event recognizes legal professionals from across the Palmetto State, who have achieved success in their law practice, made contributions to society and have had an impact on the legal industry.  

The Litigation Counsel of America (LCA) is a highly selective honorary society, comprised of less than one-half of one percent of all trial lawyers. Fellows are selected based upon excellence and accomplishment in litigation, both at the trial and appellate levels, and superior ethical reputation.

Carlock, Copeland and Stair, LLP is pleased to announce that Sarah Wetmore has been invited to join the prestigious Claims and Litigation Management Alliance. The CLM is a nonpartisan alliance comprised of thousands of insurance companies, corporations, Corporate Counsel, Litigation and Risk Managers, claims professionals and attorneys. Through education and collaboration the organization’s goals are to create a common interest in the representation by firms of companies, and to promote and further the highest standards of litigation management in pursuit of client defense. Selected attorneys and law firms are extended membership by invitation only based on nominations from CLM Fellows.

Sarah Elizabeth Wetmore of our Charleston office was recently re-elected to the Board of Directors for South Carolina’s state legal defense organization, the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys’ Association.  This will be Sarah’s second term as a Board member.  She is the first attorney from Carlock Copeland to be elected to the SCDTAA Board.  Sarah has been the Sponsorship Chair for the organization for the last two years, and she was a Co-Chair of the recent Annual Meeting in Pinehurst, NC.

Congratulations to CCS Attorney Sarah Wetmore for receiving an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ reflect a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating. Visit Martindale-Hubbell to learn more.

Sarah Wetmore attended the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association (SCDTAA) Annual Meeting at the Westin, Savannah Harbor on November 7 - 10, 2013. Wetmore was the first Carlock Copeland attorney elected to the organization's Board of Directors in 2011. Ms. Wetmore is a partner in the Charleston office, and is a member of the firm's Construction, General Liability and Coverage practice groups.

Attorney Sarah Wetmore served on the host committee for the South Carolina Bar Foundation’s Charleston Grantee Gathering on Aug. 28th. The event benefited three Lowcountry grant organizations: the Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation, Crisis Ministries and South Carolina Legal Services’ Charleston office. The South Carolina Bar Foundation has awarded $1.89 million in grant funds to support civil legal aid, law related education and other legal related projects. Carlock Copeland is proud to announce that Ms. Wetmore has been asked to serve on the Foundation’s young lawyers committee in 2014.

In April, Carlock Copeland Attorneys Sarah Wetmore, Laura Paton, Tyler Winton, Andrew Countryman and Robin Graham (pictured) participated in the University of South Carolina’s “Cocky Reading Express”. The program, which features a visit from University mascot Cocky himself, an afternoon of volunteers reading books with 4K through second grade students, and gifts of new books to take home, is designed to help children understand the importance of life-long reading. CCS Attorneys were excited to serve as volunteer readers at Sanders-Clyde Elementary School in Charleston, SC. The program has given away more than 60,000 books to students to date. To learn more about the program, visit: Cocky Reading Express.

Attorneys Sarah Wetmore and Laura Paris Paton will spend Friday, May 6, reading to kindergartners and first graders at Murray-LaSaine Elementary School in Charleston, South Carolina. After reading to each classroom, Wetmore and Paris will ask the children to pledge to read at home with their families, and then present each child with books of their own. The event is in coordination with Cocky's Reading Express, a program of the University of South Carolina Student Government and the University's School of Library and Information Science. Cocky is the University of South Carolina mascot. Wetmore and Paris became involved in the program through South Carolina Bar Community Week. The program focuses on pre-kindergarten through third grade because research shows children are more likely to succeed academically and graduate on time if they acquire strong reading skills by the end of third grade. Wetmore attributes her involvement in children's programs such as this to her mother, a PhD in literacy and former college dean. As a law student, Wetmore always gave books to the children of the women she encountered through the Wake Forest University School of Law Domestic Advocacy Program and the Winston-Salem Legal Aid Program. Wetmore is a partner in the Charleston, South Carolina office and her law practice focuses on general civil litigation with specific emphasis in insurance defense, personal injury defense, professional liability defense and construction litigation. Paris participated in the Cinderella Project last year in association with the SC Bar, leading the charge to collect donations for a boutique where underprivileged high school girls chose prom dresses. Paris has a background in family-based immigration law and began her practice assisting families in the Charleston area with family reunification. Paris also practices in the Charleston, South Carolina office, focusing on civil litigation with specific emphasis in construction litigation, insurance defense and general liability. Wetmore and Paris have participated in the SC Bar Community Week Program for many years, donating their time to numerous clothing, supplies and book drives.

We are pleased to announce Spencer A. Bomar,  Heather M. Miller, and Paul E. Sperry have been named Partners. Additionally, Cheryl H. Shaw and Sarah E. Wetmore have been named Of Counsel.

Recent Article by Sarah Wetmore Butler in SCDTAA's The Defense Line, Volume 46. Lawyers need to treat one another better, and each one of us must serve as the example of any change that we want to see. Despite the significant focus in recent years on civility in our practice, there are still some serious offenders. Don't get me wrong, most attorneys that I have the great fortune to work with are considerate, gracious and professional. It's the outliers that that leave me troubled. With that introduction to the topic, let me take a moment to introduce the newest addition to The DefenseLine: Practically Speaking. The SCDTAA is excited about the possibilities that this column offers. It's a space to talk about what's on our minds. It's a place to share ideas openly. We hope readers will feel encouraged to send in their candid advice and important thoughts. I like to think that I am generally optimistic. I try to see the bright side and the good in everyone. However, I have to admit that sometimes this job can really get to me. The stress and the work load can be overwhelming. The hours spent working and the responsibilities that we have can be draining. Most days, I can handle it, but sometimes it weighs on me and what really pulls me down are lawyers who are ill-tempered, disagreeable or even downright nasty. I'm talking about the lawyers who make it their mission to make everything difficult. I'm not talking about the lawyer who is a fair adversary or an advocate for their client. I respect that. In fact, if you look up 'advocate' in the thesaurus, lawyer is a listed synonym. Other synonyms are proponent, champion, spokesperson and upholder. That's our profession. I am bringing to light the mean, dishonorable or petty conduct that I occasionally, and very unfortunately, run across. We have all met him or her: The lawyer that is just difficult for difficulty's sake. They are exhausting. You know what, and who, I am talking about. It's like a hobby to these few unprincipled lawyers out there. The lawyer who won't talk to you about anything. The lawyer who sends snarky emails. The lawyer who sends threatening letters. The lawyer that takes preposterous positions. Attorneys who storm out of depositions, who name call, who make a fight out of everything. Where do these conceited, obnoxious professionals spring from? Where did they learn or perceive that being uncooperative and ugly is somehow part of being an attorney?....... Click here to read the entire article. For more information on SCDTAA or The Defense Line, please click here.

Sarah Wetmore, Laura Paton, Sally Bright, Alex Davis and Nick Stewart Presented Additional Insured Jeopardy at Carlock, Copeland & Stair’s Annual Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Seminar at Carlock, Copeland & Stair’s annual Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith Seminar on August 24 at the Atlanta Botanical Garden. Please contact Michelle Mattox at mmattox@cskl.law if you would like our attorneys to present in-house lunch & learn sessions or webinars.

Welcome to Part II of the wild world of additional insureds (AI)!  Last quarter, we introduced you to the basics regarding additional insured coverage and provided you with two essential practice tips to remember: (1) check the form; and, (2) read the contract.[1]  Although the importance of our essential practice tips cannot be overstated, they are simply the initial steps.  Now that you have these fundamental tools in hand, it’s time to start peeling back the intricate layers of AI law.  And remember, in this swiftly developing realm of AI, “[i]t is in the circumstantial detail, the embellishing touches of probability, the general air of scrupulous—almost of pedantic—veracity, that the experienced [adjuster] is seen.”[2]  In this second installment of our AI series, we will explore two issues that every professional should understand, as they are quickly taking a front seat in AI disputes across the country: priority of coverage and contribution among insurers. Who has Priority of Coverage? The question of which insurance carrier has priority of coverage between a primary carrier for a purported additional insured and a carrier who provides additional insured coverage is an issue that commonly arises in the additional insured context.  Many “additional insured endorsements” attempt to address this issue and read something like this: Any coverage provided by this endorsement to an additional insured shall be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance available to the additional insured . . . unless the “written contract” specifically requires that this insurance be primary and that the additional insured’s primary coverage be non-contributory.[3] Although this language is seemingly concise, courts must still analyze whether the written contract between the actual parties to the litigation—e.g., the general contractor and the subcontractor—indicates a requirement that the additional insured coverage be primary.  Unfortunately, many construction contracts are unclear when it comes to additional insured requirements.[4] Courts in Georgia have analyzed additional insured endorsements with language similar to the one above.[5]  Generally, in determining whether an endorsement creates excess or primary coverage, the Georgia courts have first looked to the contractual language related to insurance coverage.[6]  From this language, the courts have tried to ascertain the intent of the parties.  In doing so, these courts have typically looked at whether the contract requires the company or individual seeking coverage—normally, the general contractor—be added to the subcontractor’s policy as: (1) an additional insured; or, (2) a named insured.[7]  In interpreting language constituting the former requirement of “additional insured” status, courts have indicated in dicta that this type of language reveals no requirement of primary coverage.[8]  On the other hand, these same courts have unequivocally found that the latter requirement of “named insured” status indicates a requirement of primary coverage.[9]  For example, in 3060 Corp. v. Crescent One Buckhead Plaza, L.P.,[10] the Georgia Court of Appeals found that a lease agreement requiring that the tenant get an insurance policy for the landlord that specifically listed the landlord as a “named insured” was sufficient to show a “requirement” that the tenant’s insurance be primary. In any event, more often than not, the additional insured will have its own Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy providing coverage for the claim at issue.  This in turn raises the question of which policy provides primary coverage—the additional insured’s policy or the named insured’s policy.  Some policies contain an “other insurance” clause which renders its coverage excess above any other insurance available to the additional insured.  Problems can arise, however, when the additional insured’s policy also contains an “other insurance” clause which renders its coverage excess above other policies.  In that instance, most courts find that the “other insurance” clauses cancel each other out and require that the insurers split the additional insured’s defense costs pro rata.[11] Case law deciphering priority of coverage in the AI context is still developing, with many interesting cases currently being litigated.  Nevertheless, the cases out of Georgia provide a trustworthy prediction of how courts in other jurisdictions will handle similar issues.  Importantly, those cases provide three key questions that should be answered before a court can determine the priority of coverage: (1) whether there is an additional insured endorsement and what language is utilized therein; (2) whether there is an “additional insured” or “named insured” requirement in the parties’ written contract; and (3) whether one or both policies contain an “other insurance” clause. Contribution Among Insurers             Beyond the duty to indemnify and the priority of coverage therein is the duty to defend.  There are two schools of thought in this regard, and both are represented in the Southeast.[12]  In Florida, while there is a right to contribution for indemnity payments among insurers, there is no reciprocal right to contribution for defense costs.[13]  The courts’ justification is that there is an absolute duty for each insurer to defend and the benefit of that defense is inherently granted by each policy.[14]  Accordingly, any rights, duties, or benefits of a different insurer should not be considered.[15]  Like in Florida, South Carolina similarly bars contribution among insurers for defense costs.[16]  There, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit similarly found that under South Carolina law the duty to defend is personal to each insurer.[17]  In other words, the Fourth Circuit found that by simply defending, the insurer is doing nothing greater than what it had personally obligated itself to do by contract.[18] A second school of thought is found in Georgia.[19]  Under Georgia law, equitable contribution is not permitted between two insurers.[20]  However, unlike in Florida and South Carolina, the existence of an “other insurance” clause—which is found in most modern insurance contracts—constitutes a sufficient contractual agreement to allow one insurer to seek contribution from another insurer for defense costs.[21]  North Carolina also has an exception whereby contribution is available between insurers.[22]  There, while an insurer who has a duty to defend its insured may not recover its defense costs from another insurer who also has a duty to defend, if an insurer has no real duty to defend under its policy but defends anyway, contribution is available to that insurer.[23] Like priority of coverage issues, contribution in the AI context is still a developing area of the law.  It remains to be seen which school of thought gains more traction across the courts in the various states.  We look forward to keeping you updated on any new developments, and we will continue to provide you with timely and important insight throughout this quarterly AI series.  Stay tuned for more important practice tips in our third AI series installment coming in the second quarter of 2017! [1] If you missed our first installment of this AI series, you can access that article here. [2] Jerome Klapka Jerome, Three Men in a Boat 217 (1889). [3] Generally speaking, “[a]dditional insured endorsements [] take one of two forms: (1) specific endorsements in which the additional insured is named explicitly, or (2) ‘omnibus additional insured’ endorsements in which the specific additional insured is not named but instead meets a definition provided.”  Ins. Co. of Pa. v. APAC-Southeast, Inc., 677 S.E.2d 734, 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). [4] See, e.g., id. at 740 (finding language in a subcontract ambiguous because it “did not require excess policy coverage but [did] require[] additional insured coverage to be obtained for such a policy once procured”). [5] See, e.g., 3060 Corp. v. Crescent One Buckhead Plaza, L.P., 686 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). [6] See, e.g., id. [7] See, e.g., id. [8] See, e.g., id. at 370-71. [9] See, e.g., id. at 370. [10] 686 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). [11] See, e.g., Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Waveblast Watersports, Inc., 80 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (S.D. Fla. 2015); Northland Ins. Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 689 S.E.2d 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009); see also State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Holton, 205 S.E.2d 872 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974) (“Where . . . both insurers attempt to limit their liability to excess coverage ‘if there is other insurance,’ then the clauses are irreconcilable, cancel each other out, and the liability is to be divided equally between them.”). [12] Compare Cont'l Casualty Co. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 637 So. 2d 270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994), and Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 597 Fed. Appx. 197 (4th Cir. 2015), with Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Ga. 2006). [13] See, e.g., Cont'l Casualty Co., 637 So. 2d 270. [14] See, e.g., id. [15] See id. [16] See, e.g., Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 597 Fed. Appx. 197. [17] See id. [18] See id. [19] See, e.g., Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (N.D. Ga. 2006). [20] See, e.g., id. [21] See, e.g., id. [22] See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 470 S.E.2d 556 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). [23] See id.

Carlock Copeland’s Annual Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Seminar for claims professionals serving Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee was held at the Atlanta Botanical Garden on September 15. Melissa Bailey, Jack Daniel, Alex Davis, Charlie McDaniel, David Root, Fred Valz, Lee Weatherly, Sarah Wetmore and Ryan Wilhelm presented. Topics included: Litigating Coverage Issues Through Appeal • Construction Defect Coverage Issues • Rescinding Policies • Effective Denials and Reservation of Rights Letters • Interplay of Underwriting and Claims • Coverage Issues Involving Additional Insureds • Litigation Coverage Issues In Trucking Policies • Coverage Issues in a Sharing Economy. Please contact Michelle Mattox at mmattox@cskl.law for more information.

Partner Sarah Wetmore was on the planning committee for the 2016 SCDTAA annual meeting held from November 10-12 in Greensboro, Georgia. Several Carlock Copeland & Stair, LLP partners presented and were in attendance. The meeting was attended by defense attorneys and judges from around South Carolina. Lee Weatherly presented Preparing a Client to Testify - Taking Your Game to the Next Level. Gary Lovell presented Medical Malpractice Tort Reform: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? Gary's presentation centered around the current state of the notice of intent to file suit proceedings, the obstetrical and emergency medicine exception to standard of care, and noneconomic damage caps.

Additional Insured (AI) demands are on the rise in South Carolina.  Those demands are increasingly having a significant impact on construction litigation disputes with general contractors, developers, subcontractors (and their respective carriers) fiercely debating the obligations under their contracts and insurance policies.  To help you navigate this complex topic, we have broken down what you need to know about AI issues into a series of articles in a series of quarterly writings.  Welcome to Part I of the wild world of AI. For more information please click here.

Jack Daniel and Sarah Wetmore presented Doing the Plaintiff’s Work for Him? Why Help the Bad Guy? at Carlock Copeland's Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Seminar to be held September 15 at the Atlanta Botanical Garden. Topics covered will include, handling claims from the beginning, contractual indemnity, verdict forms, adding parties, handling settlements, premises liability, product liability, contracts, auto accident cases, and workers' compensation.

Sarah Wetmore presented Everybody is Looking for Coverage/The Additional Insured in the Construction Litigation Context at Carlock Copeland's Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Seminar to be held September 15 at the Atlanta Botanical Garden.

Sarah Wetmore to participate in presentation “Not So Simple Addition: Coverage Issues Surrounding Additional Insureds In the Southeast” - Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Panel Session at the 2016 CLM National Construction Claims Conference.

SC Lawyer article by Laura Paton, Sarah Wetmore and Clinton Magill on the possible uses of Fitbit data cited by the Wall Street Journal in Law Blog.  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog is entitled, Prosecutors Say Fitbit Device Exposed Fibbing in Rape Case. Laura Paton, Sarah Wetmore, and Clinton Magill's article entitled, "How Wearable Fitness Devices Could Impact Personal Injury in South Carolina" was published in the January 2016 SC Lawyer publication.  SC Lawyer is a publication of the South Carolina Bar. With the emergence of the wearable fitness device market comes an increase in personalized health and fitness data for discovery and investigation on using information from fitness devices in personal injury litigation. Laura Paton is of counsel and Sarah Wetmore is a partner in the Charleston office of Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP.  Clinton Magill is in the Atlanta office of Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP. With express permission to reprint by SC Lawyer Magazine, January 2016 Edition©.

With the emergence of the wearable fitness device market comes an increase in personalized health and fitness data for discovery and investigation on using information from fitness devices in personal injury litigation.  Laura Paton, Sarah Wetmore, and Clinton Magill's article entitled, "How Wearable Fitness Devices Could Impact Personal Injury in South Carolina" has been published in SC Lawyer.  SC Lawyer is a publication of the South Carolina Bar. Laura Paton is of counsel and Sarah Wetmore is a partner in the Charleston office of Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP.  Clinton T. Magill is in his third year at the Charleston School of Law. Please click here to review the SC Lawyer January 2016 cover.  To read the complete article, click here. With express permission to reprint by SC Lawyer Magazine, January 2016 Edition©.    

Ryan Wilhelm, Angela Kopet, Kristen Thompson, Heather Miller and Sarah Wetmore presented "Updates in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee Law" at Carlock, Copeland & Stair's 7th Annual General Liability and Workers' Compensation Seminar at Turner Field on June 10, 2015.

This presentation examined the purpose of homeowners’ insurance and the applicability of coverage and exclusions in various contexts. The presenter discussed situations where the insurers may not be obligated to defend or pay damages for certain types of claims. Sarah Wetmore gave this presentation at the Firm's Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith seminar.

Charlie McDaniel, Lee Weatherly and Sarah Wetmore gave this presentation at the Firm's Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Seminar.

Charlie McDaniel, Ryan Wilhelm and Sarah Wetmore presented “Defending Damages in 1st Party Property Claims” at the Carlock, Copeland & Stair Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Seminar September 19, 2013 at the Atlanta Botanical Garden.

Sarah Wetmore recently gave a seminar, "What Today's Attorneys Expect From Court Reporters", to a group of court reporters which focused on professionalism and an attorney's perspective on court reporters and depositions.

Sarah Wetmore spoke at the SC Defense Trial Attorneys Annual Trial Academy on April 17th on the topic of “Demonstrative Evidence”.

"An Analysis of the Practical Application of the S.C. Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act and the Issue of Nonparty Fault."Lee Weatherly and Sarah Wetmore. General Liability and Workers' Compensation Seminar. June 26, 2012. Atlanta, GA.

Sarah Wetmore participated in a Career Series panel discussion on networking for the students at the Charleston School of Law on Wednesday, November 2^nd, at 5:00 p.m. The primary focus of the panel was to educate the students at the Charleston School of Law on the value of networking and the importance of civility and professionalism.

Sarah Wetmore co-presented "Negotiating the Contract - Contractual 'Do's' and 'Do Not's'," at the 2011 AIA Contracts Seminar on October 26, 2011 in Mt. Pleasant, SC.

Sarah Wetmore moderated the AIA Contracts Seminar, "Know what you're getting into before you sign your next AIA contract," on October 26, 2011 in Mt. Pleasant, SC.

Sarah Wetmore spoke at the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' Association Annual Meeting on November 13th in Pinehurst, NC. She moderated the Insurance Defense / Torts breakout session where topics such as Bad Faith, Punitive Damages, Surveillance and Social Media were discussed.

Sarah Wetmore spoke at the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys' 20th Annual Trial Academy on June 3, 2010. The Trial Academy is a three-day course that is designed for practitioners with up to five years of experience in jury trials and focuses on the successful handling of all major aspects of a trial. Sarah discussed Jury Charges, Verdict Forms, and Special Interrogatories.

"Charleston attorney Wetmore is candidate for judgeship." Schuyler Kropf. The Post and Courier. February 9, 2009.