Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for USAA in a coverage dispute involving a Florida automobile insurance policy. The court held that Florida law governed the policy's family-member exclusion and that enforcing the exclusion did not violate South Carolina public policy. The court also upheld denial of underinsured motorist coverage because the vehicle involved was owned by and regularly available to the insured's family member.
Holdings
- The family-member exclusion, valid under Florida law, was not void as against South Carolina public policy when applied in South Carolina litigation.
- The injured child was not entitled to UIM benefits because the policy's definition of an uninsured motor vehicle excluded an automobile owned by or furnished to or regularly available for the use of the named insured or a family member, and the Honda fell within that exclusion.
Questions Presented
- Whether enforcement in South Carolina of the Florida automobile policy's family-member exclusion violated South Carolina public policy.
- Whether the injured child was entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under the Florida automobile insurance policy.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Mitchell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 678 So. 2d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)(followed)
- Unisun Ins. Co. v. Hertz Rental Corp., 312 S.C. 549, 436 S.E.2d 182 (Ct. App. 1993)(followed)
- Elam v. Elam, 275 S.C. 132, 268 S.E.2d 109 (1980)(distinguished)
- Algie v. Algie, 261 S.C. 103, 198 S.E.2d 529 (1973)(distinguished)
- Boone v. Boone, 345 S.C. 8, 546 S.E.2d 191 (2001)(distinguished)
- Dunes West Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 401 S.C. 280, 737 S.E.2d 601, fn. 11 (2013)(followed)
- Small v. New Hampshire Indem., 915 So. 2d 714 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…