Stephany A. Connelly and James M. Connelly v. The Main Street America Group, Old Dominion Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Debbie Cohn, and Freya Trezona

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the phrase “legally entitled to recover” in the state’s uninsured motorist statute is unambiguous. The phrase requires a plaintiff to have a viable claim capable of being reduced to judgment after overcoming applicable defenses, including workers’ compensation immunity. Because the Workers’ Compensation Act barred the injured employee from recovering against her negligent co-worker, the court reversed the lower courts’ determination that uninsured motorist coverage was available.

Holdings

1. The phrase "legally entitled to recover" in S.C. Code section 38-77-150(A) is unambiguous and means that the claimant has a viable claim capable of being reduced to a judgment against the at-fault defendant after overcoming applicable defenses.
2. An employee injured by a negligent co-employee during the course and scope of employment is not legally entitled to recover against the co-employee because the Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy and grants co-employee tort immunity; therefore, the employee cannot recover UM benefits under the policies at issue.
3. The insurers were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the UM-coverage issue because the undisputed facts established that Connelly was not legally entitled to recover against Trezona.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the phrase "legally entitled to recover" in South Carolina's uninsured motorist statute is ambiguous or requires an injured claimant to have a viable claim that can be reduced to judgment against the at-fault driver.
2. Whether an employee injured by a negligent co-employee during the course and scope of employment is legally entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits when the Workers' Compensation Act grants the co-employee tort immunity.
3. Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to Connelly on the UM-coverage issue.

Disposition

reversed