 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BUILDERS TRANSPORT v. S.C. PROPERTY & CASUALTY3/2/1992
Heard Jan. 21, 1992.
Decided March 2, 1992.
This is an action to determine whether the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (SCIGA) is obligated to pay additional sums to Builders Transport, Inc. pursuant to the provisions of the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act. The action involved two separate matters identified as the "Scott claim" and the "Mintz-Petrie claim." The trial court heard the case on summary judgment. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
I.
From January, 1983, to approximately December, 1985, Builders Transport, Inc., was insured under a general liability policy issued by Carriers Insurance Company of Des Moines, Iowa. Builders Transport is a long haul trucking company with its principal place of business in South Carolina. The Carriers Insurance policy provided Builders Transport with $9,900,000 of
After Carriers Insurance became insolvent, SCIGA undertook its statutory obligation to assume responsibility for adjusting and payment of "covered claims" which were asserted against Builders Transport and were within the coverage of the Carriers Insurance policy and the statutory definition of "covered claim." The issue concerning the "Scott claim" is the interpretation of "covered claim" under S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-31-20(6) (Rev. 1989).
On January 31, 1985, a Builders Transport truck was involved in an accident with an automobile driven by Alan
SCIGA recognized the three individual claims for
The trial court heard the matter on a motion for summary judgment. The parties stipulated the facts of the case. As the court stated in its order, "the only issue before this ourt is the legal question of whether a The court concluded the wrongful death of Mr. Scott was a single injury creating a single "covered claim" and therefore SCIGA was entitled to judgment.
At oral argument, Builders Transport emphasized its reliance upon the authority of Wood v. Shepard. In Wood, the Based upon this authority, Builders Transport contends the claims of the survivors of Alan Scott constitute three separate covered claims and not one collective covered claim.
The Wood opinion was a four to three decision of the Ohio Supreme Court. The dissent stated the majority had misinterpreted the legislative intent of the Ohio Wrongful Death Statute and the statute should be interpreted to provide only one cause of action for the recovery of damages flowing from the death of the decedent. We note this dissent because Builders Transport relies upon the case and the Wood opinion has raised much subsequent discussion and disagreement. For the reasons stated herein, we find the Wood case to be of little assistance in this matter.
In 1989, the Ohio Supreme Court again addressed the wrongful death statute and its relationship to insurance coverage in Burris v. Grange Mut. Companies. Sanford Burris was killed in an automobile accident with an insured of Grange Mutual. Burris's administrator entered into settlement negotiations with Grange Mutual. Burris was survived by a number of relatives. The Grange Mutual policy provided liability coverage up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. The issue before the Ohio Supreme Court was whether the liability coverage was limited to $100,000 or $300,000 because of the number of beneficiaries. In a four-one-two decision, the majority opinion held Wood inapplicable because Wood dealt with an interpretation of the wrongful death The majority opinion held an automobile liability insurance provision that limited coverage for all damages arising out of bodily injury, including d
Page 1 2 3 4 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|