 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Antley v. Nobel Insurance Company6/10/2002
of coverage he desires, (4) a space for the insured to sign the form which acknowledges that he has been offered the optional coverages, (5) the mailing address and telephone number of the Insurance Department which the applicant may contact if the applicant has any questions that the insurance agent is unable to answer."). Here, Nobel does not dispute it is not entitled to this presumption because its form does not minimally comply with ยง 38-77-350(A). The question, then, is whether Nobel met its burden of showing it made a meaningful offer to Antley's employer, Southern Bulk Haulers, Inc.
The record indicates Nobel's sole evidence of a meaningful offer was its "Rejection - Selection" form for UM and UIM coverage. Although Southern's representative did sign a form purporting to reject additional uninsured coverage above the $15,000 required by South Carolina law, this fact is not dispositive as "a non-complying offer has the legal effect of no offer at all." Hanover, 301 S.C. at 57, 389 S.E.2d at 659. In our view, the form provided by Nobel decidedly fails the "meaningful offer" test set forth in Wannamaker. Although Nobel's form states Southern was given the opportunity to purchase UM/UIM coverage "in amounts up to the automobile liability limits," the form reflects Southern was then limited to the following choices:
_____ 1. I hereby reject the property damage feature of the Uninsured/ Underinsured Motorists Coverage only. _____ 2. I hereby reject Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage for limits in excess of the following specified limits: Bodily Injury $15,000/$30,000 Property Damage $5,000 Combined Single Limit ________________ _____ 3. I hereby accept Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage in its entirety, realizing that coverage will apply only for the motor vehicles which meet the definition of "owned automobiles" as provided in this policy.
Clearly Nobel, by limiting the insured to the three choices listed above, did not effectively offer any additional coverage, as it failed to list a single coverage amount accompanied by a corresponding premium. Nobel's form, which at most offers such coverage only in general terms, and neither apprises the insured of the nature of UM/UIM coverage nor relates that optional coverages are available for an additional premium, does not satisfy Wannamaker. See Ackerman, 318 S.C. at 144-45, 456 S.E.2d at 412 ("To be effective, the insurer must specify the limits of optional coverage and not merely offer it in general terms.... [Insurer] also failed to provide [insured] with a separately stated premium amount for optional coverage at the specified limits.... This omission is also fatal and renders the offer ineffective.... To be effective, the offer must be explained in a format and language that allows the insured to make an informed decision to accept or reject the coverage...."); Amer. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Howard, 315 S.C. 47, 51-52, 431 S.E.2d 604, 607-08 (Ct. App. 1993) ("Because it did not give the insured a choice of optional coverage limits, the form failed to make an effective offer.... he form offered [optional] coverage without specifically stating the limits of the coverage. To be effective, the offer must specify the limits of the additional coverage in dollar amounts. If it fails to do so, it does not constitute a meaningful offer.... he form does not provide the insured with a separately stated premium amount for coverage at the specified limits. This omission likewise renders the offer ineffective.... he form fails to explain the nature of [optional] coverage and how it differs from other coverages. It omits any description that would allow the insured to make an informed decision to accept or reject the coverage. This omissi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|