The ENS Article on the legal request of the new S.C. TEC Bishop to reconsider dismissal

In other legal matters, the [new diocese of the] Episcopal Church in South Carolina has filed a separate legal action asking the federal court to rule that its liability insurance policy provides coverage for the state lawsuit.

Attorneys for The Episcopal Church in South Carolina contacted the Church Insurance Company of Vermont in writing in August. The company denied coverage, prompting the legal action to clarify the matter, according to Thomas S. Tisdale, Jr., Chancellor of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina. The case also has been assigned to Judge Houck.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, * South Carolina, Episcopal Church (TEC), Ethics / Moral Theology, Law & Legal Issues, TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: South Carolina, Theology

5 comments on “The ENS Article on the legal request of the new S.C. TEC Bishop to reconsider dismissal

  1. Undergroundpewster says:

    This is priceless. They want their insurance company to cover their legal costs! If the insurance company is judged liable for the legal bills, I wonder if Tisdale’s group will then ask for the insurance company to pay for all the “lost property” at the end of all this litigation.

  2. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    No wonder the Bandit Queen is trying to raid the United Thank Offering’s coffers.

    As predicted, they have run out of other peoples’ money, and used up their short-term lines of credit in financing the faux dioceses and their burgeoning litigation.

    Ho hum – Tisdale and Beers better tighten their belts and cut back on the champagne lifestyle just like ordinary people have had to.

  3. Katherine says:

    No, it’s better than priceless, Up. They wanted their opponents’ insurance company to cover their legal costs. The policy belongs to, and is paid by, the (real) Diocese of South Carolina, as I understand it. If this is wrong, someone please correct me.

  4. Katherine says:

    Undergroundpewster, over at Stand Firm, A.S. Haley says in a comment that he thinks my understanding of this may be correct, but he is naturally waiting to see the actual filing in the case before opining formally.

  5. Undergroundpewster says:

    Katherine, Thanks