 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. West American Insurance Co.6/1/1999
) the existence of a mutually binding contract of insurance between plaintiff and defendant; (2) an insurer's refusal to provide benefits due under the contract; (3) resulting from the insurer's bad faith or unreasonable action and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the contract; and (4) causing damage to the insured. See, e.g., Brown v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 284 S.C. 47, 55, 324 S.E.2d 641, 646 (Ct. App. 1984) (" f a mutually binding contract exists and the denial is found to be in bad faith or unreasonable, the insurer is liable for consequential losses caused by its breach of the express and implied obligations of the contract . . . ."), overruled on other grounds by Charleston County Sch. Dist. v. State Budget & Control Bd., 313 S.C. 1, 437 S.E.2d 6 (1993) (holding bad faith is in tort, not contract). See also Cock-N-Bull Steakhouse, Inc. v. Generali Ins. Co., 321 S.C. 1, 6, 466 S.E.2d 727, 730 (1996).
As discussed in Part II above, Walker and West American properly cancelled Walker's policy on February 25, 1991, before the accident of April 14, 1991. Accordingly, no valid insurance contract existed at the time of the automobile accident. Therefore, Peterson failed to establish the first prong necessary to prove West American acted in bad faith by refusing to represent Walker, i.e., the existence of a mutually binding contract of insurance.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, we conclude Walker cancelled her automobile insurance policy prior to the accident involving her car on April 14, 1991. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of the insurer, West American, is
AFFIRMED.
CURETON and STILWELL, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|