Jolly was found in criminal contempt for conduct related to a fraudulent real estate scheme. He was later indicted for obtaining property under false pretenses. The trial court dismissed two counts on double jeopardy grounds. The panel reversed. Applying the traditional Blockburger elements test, it held that contempt and false pretenses each require proof of elements the other does not and thus there was no double jeopardy bar as to the later charges.
Pulliman and others were sued for defective construction of a condominium development. He sued Travelers for a declaration that he was entitled to coverage under and Directors and Officers policy. The circuit court ruled there was coverage. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held, consistent with recent South Carolina Supreme Court authority, the claims in the underlying complaint based on repair of initial defects were “property damage” and excluded from coverage. However, the claims for failure to create a reserve fund and failure to disclose conflicts of interest were not claims based on damage to property and coverage therefore existed. The breach of fiduciary duty claim did not involve dishonesty or criminality, there is no claim for failure to enforce rights and none of the suing board members were on the board when the alleged conduct occurred. Thus, no other exclusion applied to the reserve fund and disclosure claims. The panel finally held that the claim for punitive damages was excluded under the punitive damage exclusion in the policy.