 |
 |
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
rpreted and enforced according to their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning.); Braswell v. Faircloth, 300 S.C. 338, 387 S.E.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1989) (In interpreting a policy, an ambiguity may not be created by pointing out only a single sentence or clause.). Therefore, the finding of the circuit court that SECURE has a duty to defend and, if necessary, indemnify the parties in the underlying action is affirmed.
II. Primary versus Excess Coverage
In addition to its argument that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the parties in the underlying matter, Farm Bureau appeals the circuit court's finding that its policy provided primary coverage and SECURE's policy provided excess coverage. We agree.
The circuit court relied on the "total insuring intent" rule in holding Farm Bureau's policy provided primary coverage in this case while SECURE's policy provided excess coverage. The "total insuring intent" rule is set out in South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Fidelity and Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 327 S.C. 207, 489 S.E.2d 200 (1997). In that case, our supreme court held courts apportioning liabilities among multiple insurers should look to the overall language of policies to ascertain whether primary or secondary coverage is intended. Under the "total insuring intent" rule, the relevant question is the overall intent of the parties embodied in the policy. Id.
The circuit court determined the primary intent of SECURE's policy was to cover hazards associated with general pest control and extermination, whereas the Farm Bureau policy specifically provided coverage for household pets. Using this analysis, the circuit court determined the total insuring intent in the Farm Bureau policy more closely reflected the events at issue in this case, and held Farm Bureau's coverage should be primary. However, this analysis was improper under the facts of this case. The "total insuring intent" rule applies where policies at issue contain mutually exclusive "other insurance" clauses. See Fidelity, 327 S.C. 207, 489 S.E.2d 200. However, where the plain language of the policies provides that one is primary and one is excess, it is not necessary to resort to the "total insuring intent" rule. Cf. Fritz-Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick v. Goforth, 312 S.C. 315, 440 S.E.2d 367 (1994) (Insurance policies are subject to general rules of contract construction. This court must enforce, not write, contracts of insurance and we must give policy language its plain, ordinary, and popular meaning.).
In this action, the SECURE policy specifically provides that its coverage is primary "except for other insurance that is fire, extended coverage, builders risk, installation risk of similar coverage for 'your work' or; that is fire insurance for premises rented to you; or if the loss arises out of the maintenance or use of aircraft, autos, or water craft." Conversely, the Farm Bureau policy specifically provides that it "is excess over other valid and collectible insurance except insurance written to specifically cover as excess over the limits of liability that apply in [the Farm Bureau] policy." Therefore, the circuit court's determination of primary and excess coverage is reversed. Under the policies' plain language, we hold SECURE must provide the parties in the underlying action with primary coverage and Farm Bureau must provide excess coverage.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the circuit court's determination that both the SECURE and Farm Bureau policies provided coverage for the dog bite to Jordan Purvis. However, we reverse the trial court's ruling concerning primary and excess coverage and hold SECURE's coverage is primary and Farm Bureau's coverage is excess. For the foregoing reason
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.
|
|