Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Hunter Lawrence

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1438 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/22/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1438

ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

HUNTER E. LAWRENCE,

Defendant – Appellant,

and

CHRISTINA M. KIRK; AUSTIN T. KIRK,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (8:23-cv-03121-TMC)

Submitted: May 20, 2026 Decided: June 22, 2026

Before KING, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Samuel D. Harms, III, DOUBLE AUGHT INJURY LAWYERS, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.R. Murphy, W. Tradd Stover, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1438 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/22/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from the District of South Carolina, defendant Hunter Lawrence

challenges the district court’s adverse March 2025 judgment in favor of the plaintiff in

these proceedings, Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allied”). See Allied

Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, No. 8:23-cv-03121 (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2025), ECF No.

123 (the “Summary Judgment Ruling”). Relevant here, Lawrence was paralyzed by an

automobile accident that followed a drinking party — called the “beer olympics” — that

was hosted by Christina Kirk and her adult son, Austin, at their home in September 2020.

Lawrence thereupon filed a state court action against, inter alia, the Kirks, seeking to hold

them liable for general negligence and social host liability. Soon thereafter, Allied filed

this federal court lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the scope of insurance

coverage pursuant to a homeowners’ insurance policy that Allied had issued to Kirk.

By the Summary Judgment Ruling of March 2025, the district court declared —

pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 — that Allied “does not have a duty

either to provide . . . a defense [to its insureds] in [an] underlying state court action, which

has been brought by Lawrence, nor to indemnify the [insureds] for any judgment in the

underlying state court action.” See Summary Judgment Ruling 20. To put it differently,

the court ruled that Allied has no duty to defend the Kirks in the state court action filed by

Lawrence, nor to pay a judgment, if any, obtained therein by Lawrence against the Kirks.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See, e.g., Tederick v.

LoanCare, LLC, 168 F.4th 154, 162 (4th Cir. 2026); T.H.E. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 54 F.4th 805,

818 (4th Cir. 2022). In these circumstances, having carefully assessed the record — as

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1438 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/22/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

well as the various appellate submissions of the parties — we discern no reversible error.

Accordingly, we are satisfied to affirm the challenged judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED