Free Newsletter
Insurance – Auto – UIM – Stacking Prohibited – Insurers’ Liability
Defendant’s decedent, a deputy sheriff, was killed in an auto accident while he was driving a patrol vehicle. Decedent’s personal vehicle was insured by plaintiff Progressive with underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) totaling $200,000, and he was listed as an insured on his parents’ Allstate policy, which also provided a total of $200,000 in UIM coverage. […]
Insurance – Legal Malpractice – Settlement Authority – Insured’s Refusal
Although the parties’ legal malpractice policy prohibits the defendant-insurer from settling a malpractice claim without the plaintiff-attorney’s consent, if the attorney withholds her consent, the policy then relieves the insurer of its duty to defend and caps proceeds at the amount the insurer planned to offer to settle the claim. We affirm the circuit court’s […]
Insurance – Auto – Settlement Contract – Inadvertent Mistake – Hand Delivery
In complying with plaintiff’s nine-page single-spaced demand letter, defendant’s insurance company inadvertently neglected to include in its settlement packet one of the two $25,000 settlement checks that it had prepared. Plaintiff waited until four days after the deadline set out in the demand letter before informing the insurance company of its mistake. The insurance company’s […]
Insurance – Auto – Settlement Contract – Demand Letter – Form of Check
In a 10-page single-spaced demand letter, defendant’s law firm made inconsistent demands as to the form of the settlement check it would accept – it demanded both that the check be “issued by the insurance company” and that the check be either a cashier’s check or a certified bank check. Neither a cashier’s check nor […]
Insurance – Auto – Demand Letter – Type of Check – Personal Injury Coverage
Although defendant’s demand letter said she would only accept a cashier’s or certified bank check, she could not explain why the plaintiff-insurer’s check was unacceptable. Moreover, the demand was found in an ambiguous footnote: “Settlement funds must be paid by Cashier’s Checks or Certified Bank Checks (not drafts) issued by your insurance company.” Neither a […]
Insurance – Auto – UIM – No Meaningful Offer – Indemnification – Past Premiums
In a reformation action, it was determined that an insured would have accepted a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, had the defendant-Agency made such an offer. Since the plaintiff-Carrier would have provided such coverage, Carrier is not entitled to indemnification by Agency for the $300,000 it paid to settle with the insured. However, […]
Insurance – Auto – UM – Workers’ Compensation – ‘Legally Entitled to Recover’ – First Impression
The plaintiff-passenger was injured when, while she was riding in her co-worker’s car in the course of their employment, the co-worker negligently caused an accident. The Workers’ Compensation Act prevents plaintiff from obtaining a judgment against the co-worker, so plaintiff is not “legally entitled to recover” any amount from the co-worker; therefore, plaintiff is not […]
Insurance – Auto – UIM Stacking – Rental Car – Replacement Vehicle – Policy Ambiguity
Because the petitioner-insurer’s auto policy is ambiguous as to whether or not a rental vehicle – when it temporarily replaces an owned vehicle – is considered an owned vehicle, we construe the policy against the drafter and conclude that the respondent-insured is entitled to stack her underinsured motorist coverages. We modify and affirm the Court […]
Insurance – Life – Revocation upon Divorce Statute – Retroactive Application – First Impression
Even though defendant and the decedent were divorced before the enactment of S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-507, since the decedent died after the statute’s enactment, the statute applies to revoke his designation of defendant as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. We reverse summary judgment for defendant. Section 62-2-507(c)(1)(i) says a “divorce . . […]
Insurance – Auto – UM – Shooting – Causal Connection – Independent Act
Where the driver of one vehicle shot and killed the driver of another vehicle, the injury was not foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the shooter’s vehicle; furthermore, the shooting was an independent act which broke any chain of causation. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, which overturned the circuit court’s ruling in […]
Insurance – Commercial Property – Business Interruption Loss – COVID-19 Shutdown
In the parties’ commercial property insurance policy, coverage for a business interruption loss is triggered by “direct physical loss or damage.” The policy does not define this phrase, so we give the words of the phrase their ordinary meanings and conclude that neither a government order nor the presence of virus particles in the insured […]
Insurance – Commercial Liability – Anti-Assignment Clause – Post-Loss Exception – Environmental
Because the covered “occurrence” had already happened when an insured assigned its rights under its expired commercial liability policies to its successor in interest, pursuant to the post-loss exception, now adopted by this court, the insurers’ consent was not required for the assignment of rights. We reverse summary judgment for the respondent-insurers and remand for […]
Business Law
- Economy forces attorneys to get down to business
- Business Court judges trawl for customers
- Va. company's Web site did not subject business to personal jurisdiction in S.C., appeals panel rules
- Former running back from S.C. wins courtroom victory in contract dispute
- Contract – Government Contract – Qui Tam – False Claims Act
- Tort – Business Tort – Va. Computer Crimes Act – Trade Secrets
- Consumer Protection – FCRA – Auto Loan – Bank Accounting Errors
- Licenses & Permits – Beer & Wine Permit – Restrictive Covenant – Suitable Location
- Licenses & Permits – Veterinarian – Vaccine Maintenance
- State regulators look at car dealer accused of lying to customers
- Textile firm, railroad settle Graniteville train wreck lawsuit
- Subprime mortgage meltdown hits securities law
Commentary
- High court justices cross the line of propriety
- High court’s term was rough on big business
- The flip side of generative AI in law and how to address it
- The fight for equal educational opportunity continues
- Letter From The Editor – Working from Home
- NLRB joins FTC in taking aim at non-competes
- Supreme Court leaves key internet protection untouched
- US Supreme Court bites back at parody’s use of the First Amendment
- My goal: Provide the information that you need now
- Case study: North Carolina courts provide guidance on scope, limitations of attorney-client privilege
- A Different Ode to Pro Bono Work
- N.C. Bar Association embraces homophobia
Polls
Loading ...
SC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign-up for SC Lawyers Weekly Email Alerts
