 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. S.E.C.U.R.E. Underwriters Risk Retention Group11/27/2000
Burns v. South Carolina Comm'n for Blind, 323 S.C. 77, 448 S.E.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1994). In such instances, the injury is not caused by the premises, strictly speaking, but damages are recoverable because the incident occurred on the premises and the property owner failed to adequately warn or take precautions to avoid the injury. Id.; see also Henderson v. St. Francis Community Hosp., 303 S.C. 177, 399 S.E.2d 767 (1990) (a person owes an invitee the duty of exercising reasonable or ordinary care for her safety, and is liable for any injury resulting from the breach of that duty); Neil v. Byrum, 288 S.C. 472, 343 S.E.2d 615 (1986) (As relates to a licensee, a landowner has a duty to use reasonable care to warn him of any concealed dangerous conditions or activities which are known to the possessor, or of any changes in the condition of the premises which may be dangerous to him, and which he may reasonably be expected to discover.).
Premises Liability As A Covered Operation or Hazard Under the Policy
Additionally, SECURE argues its policy did not insure the duty to keep the business of Garrison Pest Control safe for the visiting public. SECURE bases this argument on the provision of the policy which states as follows:
The coverage afforded by this policy pertains only to those operations identified on the signed S.E.C.U.R.E. application and in the Description of Hazards or Classifications pages (SEC-140) of this policy.
SECURE maintains the Description of Hazards and Basis of Premium included various potential hazards that relate only to the business of extermination. SECURE further asserts the presence of Jordan Purvis and the dog was not related to any of the covered hazards.
As an initial matter, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. An issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court for an appellate court to review the issue. Tupper v. Dorchester County, 326 S.C. 318, 487 S.E.2d 187 (1997). Although SECURE raised the issue of whether the SECURE policy affords coverage only for those operations which are identified on the list of classifications and in the description of hazards, it was never ruled upon and SECURE failed to file a motion to alter or amend. See Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 403 S.E.2d 122 (1991) (issue was not preserved for appellate review where the trial court did not explicitly rule on the appellant's argument and the appellant made no Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the judgment). Accordingly, the issue is not preserved for appellate review.
Reaching the merits of the issue, the SECURE policy provides coverage for this incident. One of the hazards listed on the Description of Hazards and Basis of Premium and on the signed application was general pest control. SECURE argues general pest control is limited to the act of actual extermination and the SECURE policy "does not insure property. . . It only controls pest control activities." However, the policy's plain language defies such an interpretation. Under Coverage C- Medical Payments, the SECURE policy states, "We will pay medical expenses as described below for 'bodily injury' caused by an accident . . . on premises you own or rent. . . ." (Emphasis added). This language evidences a clear policy intent to provide premises liability coverage. Therefore, we do not adopt the narrow definition of "general pest control" advanced by SECURE. Doing so would inappropriately create an ambiguity in an otherwise unambiguous policy. See Myers v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 246 S.C. 46, 142 S.E.2d 704 (1965); South Carolina Ins. Co. v. White, 301 S.C. 133, 390 S.E.2d 471 (Ct. App. 1990) (If there is no ambiguity, an insurance policy's terms must be inte
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|