Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

SMITH v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO.

8/9/1993

Since the former law specifically limits the recovery of PIP benefits to pedestrians, other than the insured or a relative of the insured, injured in the State of Georgia, Liberty's exclusion obviously did not violate Georgia public policy. Moreover, South Carolina does not require any PIP coverage under its automobile insurance laws and has no public policy regarding such coverage. S.C. Code Ann. ยง 38-77-145 (Supp. 1992). Accordingly, we find no public policy which precludes Liberty Mutual from contracting to exclude PIP coverage for pedestrians, not related to the insured, injured in accidents which occur outside the State of Georgia.


Furthermore, in Barkley, the South Carolina Supreme Court stated; "We cannot read into an insurance contract, under the guise of public policy, provisions which are not required by law and which the parties thereto clearly and plainly have failed to include." Id. at 45, 86 S.E.2d at 605. As we previously concluded, we find the language of the contract clear and plain and, therefore, do not find it appropriate under Barkley to construe the policy contrary to its meaning in the name of public policy.
Finally, we note that Smith attempts to rely on S.C. Code section 38-55-50 (1976) to support his position. Section 38-55-50 reads, "An insurer . . . may not make or permit any discrimination in favor of individuals between insureds of the same class and risk involving the same hazards in the amount of the payment of . . . benefits payable, or in any other of the terms and conditions of the contracts it makes." This section relates to discrimination in contracting for insurance and not against claimants. We hold, therefore, that section 38-55-50 is inapplicable to this case.


For the foregoing reasons, we reverse.


Reversed.






Page 1 2 

South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE