Century Indemnity Company, as successor to CCI Insurance Company as successor to… v. PETER O. STOLTZ; BROOKE M. No. 00-1766  STOLTZ

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, as
successor to CCI Insurance
Company as successor to Insurance
Company of North America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PETER O. STOLTZ; BROOKE M. No. 00-1766 
STOLTZ,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
GOLDEN HILLS BUILDERS,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant. 
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-99-3332-3-19)
Argued: February 28, 2001
Decided: May 16, 2002
Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Hamilton wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Wilkins and Judge Williams joined.

-- 1 of 3 --

COUNSEL
ARGUED: Richard Robert Gleissner, FINKEL & ATLMAN, L.L.C.,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. John Robert Murphy,
MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Anthony W. Livoti, MURPHY & GRANT-
LAND, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Century Indemnity Company (Century) brought this declaratory
judgment action against its insured, Golden Hills Builders, Inc. (Gol-
den Hills Builders), a general contractor, and Peter and Brooke Stoltz
(the Stoltzes), the owners of a home constructed by Golden Hills
Builders. At issue was what coverage, if any, was afforded by a stan-
dard commercial general liability policy (the Policy) that Century’s
predecessor-in-interest had issued to Golden Hills Builders for a one-
year period that began on December 7, 1989. Century sought a decla-
ration that no coverage existed under the Policy for either: (1) the cost
and expenses of repairs and replacement of the synthetic stucco exte-
rior of the Stoltzes’ home, which exterior a subcontractor of Golden
Hills Builders allegedly constructed in a defective manner; or (2) the
cost of repairs to the substrate and framing members of the Stoltzes’
home, which repairs were necessitated by moisture damage caused by
the alleged defective manner in which the home’s synthetic stucco
exterior was constructed. Century made a motion for summary judg-
ment, which the district court granted in toto.
Golden Hills Builders did not appeal. However, the Stoltzes noted
a timely appeal limited to that portion of the adverse judgment that
addressed the lack of coverage for the damage to the substrate and
framing members of their home. In order to resolve the Stoltzes’
appeal, we certified four questions to the Supreme Court of South Caro-
lina.1 Century Indemnity Co. v. Stoltz, 248 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2001).
1The parties agree that South Carolina law governs this diversity
action.
2 CENTURY INDEMNITY CO. v. STOLTZ

-- 2 of 3 --

The Supreme Court of South Carolina reformulated and answered
three of those questions as follows:
[1] Does a standard commercial general liability insurance
policy that explicitly provides coverage only for property
damage occurring during the policy period provide coverage
for continuing damage that begins during the policy period?
. . . [Y]es.
* * *
[2] Is a general contractor’s claim for the cost of repair to
the substrate and framing of a house that was damaged by
a subcontractor’s improper installation of a stucco exterior
precluded by a faulty workmanship exclusion? . . . [Y]es.
* * *
[3] If the coverage is precluded by the faulty workmanship
provision, is that coverage restored by a provision that pro-
vides coverage for damage arising from products-completed
operations hazards? [No.]
Century Indemnity Co. v. Golden Hills Builders, Inc., No. 25426,
2002 WL 371659 (S.C. Mar. 11, 2002). The answers to these three
questions require that we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Century with respect to the coverage issue pre-
sented in this appeal.2
AFFIRMED
2Given that its respective answers to the two certified questions labeled
as numbers two and three above were dispositive of the coverage issue
presented in this appeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina declined
to answer the remaining certified question. Id. at *5 n.3.
3 CENTURY INDEMNITY CO. v. STOLTZ

-- 3 of 3 --