 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BUILDERS TRANSPORT v. S.C. PROPERTY & CASUALTY3/2/1992
holding of Wood which explicitly ties interpretation of the number of claims under the Ohio wrongful death statute and recovery under a split limit insurance policy to the exclusionary language of the policy in question. The Carriers Insurance policy was not a split limit policy. The Wood v. Shepard decision is not relevant.
We, therefore, turn to the question of the intention of the South Carolina Legislature in the adoption of the language in the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act. The Act is silent on wrongful death actions. Likewise, it does not contain specific language relating to a personal injury action. This court must interpret the only language used which is the term "covered claim" as defined in S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-31-20(6) (Rev. 1989). The section defines "covered claim" as "an unpaid claim . . . which arises out of and is within the coverage and is subject to the applicable limits of an insurance policy to which this chapter applies issued by an insurer, if the insurer is an insolvent insurer. . . ." Our appellate courts have not interpreted this term but our Supreme Court has recognized the function of the Guaranty Association is to provide protection for insureds in the event their insurance carriers become insolvent. The parties stipulate that but for the insolvency of Carriers Insurance the settlement
As we view the case, we find the automobile accident led to four separate causes of action. Mrs. Scott and her two children each had causes of action for their personal injuries. Further, there was a separate cause of action for the death of Mr. Scott. Mrs. Scott and her children were the multiple beneficiaries of this action but inherently there was only one claim for his death as defined under the term "covered claim" in S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-31-20(6). We believe this interpretation is consistent with the Ohio Since SCIGA paid Builders Transport the full amount of statutory coverage, SCIGA was entitled to judgment. We affirm the trial court.
II.
The second matter addressed by the trial court was the "Mintz-Petrie" case. The trial court held SCIGA was required to pay prejudgment interest to Builders Transport on the sum of $99,824 from August 21, 1987. SCIGA appeals this decision. We affirm.
The parties stipulated to the facts. On May 24, 1985, a Builders Transport truck was involved in an accident with a motorcycle operated by Clayton Evan Mintz. Gregory Petrie was a passenger on the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Mintz and Petrie filed separate lawsuits against Builders Transport. Both of these claims would have been covered under the terms of the insurance policy issued by Carriers Insurance Company. After Carriers Insurance became insolvent, SCIGA assumed its statutory role with respect to "covered claims" that otherwise would have been paid by the insolvent insurer.
Builders Transport negotiated a settlement of both the Mintz and Petrie claims for a total of $675,303.68. The Petrie claim was settled for $536,036.05 and the Mintz action was settled for $139,267.63. According to its complaint, Builders
SCIGA is a nonprofit unincorporated legal entity created by the legislature. Its powers and duties are defined by statute. One of the duties of SCIGA is to pay "covered claims" against insolvent insurers. The parties have not cited any statute in the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act which addresses the question of the award of prejudgment interest in a dispute between an insured of an insolvent insurer and SCIGA over the amount of reimbursement due to the insured. The Act does provide SCIGA "is considered the insurer to the ext
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.
|
|