
    22156
    CHARLESTON HOUSEWRECKING COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. CANADIAN UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
    (319 S. E. (2d) 338)
    Supreme Court
    
      
      Joseph R. Young, of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, Charleston, for appellant.
    
    
      B. C. Killough, Charleston, for respondent.
    
    Submitted June 14, 1984.
    Decided Aug. 15, 1984.
   Per Curiam:

Appellant, Canadian Universal Insurance Company asserts the trial court erroneously denied its motion for summary judgment, contending it had no duty to defend respondent, Charleston Housewrecking Company, in an action for damages instituted by a third party.

We find appellant’s sole exception to be in violation of Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6, as it does not contain a complete assignment of error. “This defect is sufficient to warrant dismissal of this appeal.” Simmons v. Johnson, 279 S. C. 146, 303 S. E. (2d) 101, 102 (1983).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6.  