 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
S.C. FARM BUREAU INS. CO. v. MUMFORD6/26/1989
Heard Jan. 24, 1989.
Decided June 26, 1989.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment. It arises out of an automobile collision involving Dorothy Mumford and Joseph Bill McLamb, Jr. The South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company is Mumford's third party liability insurance carrier. The North Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company provides uninsured motorist coverage for McLamb. The Canal Insurance Company provides collision coverage for McLamb. South Carolina Farm Bureau commenced this action against the other parties seeking a declaration that its policy provided no liability coverage for Mumford because the collision comes within the "intentional acts" exclusion of its policy. The circuit court held that the policy excludes liability on the facts of this case and that the exclusion clause is valid. North Carolina Farm Bureau and Canal appeal. We reverse.
The facts of the case are straightforward. On October 18, 1985, Mumford drove her automobile across the center line of a highway and struck McLamb's truck, which was approaching in the oncoming lane. Mumford saw the truck and deliberately collided with it in an attempt to commit suicide. She was under medical treatment for depression at the time. The collision caused personal injuries and property damage to McLamb.
Mumford's liability policy provides coverage for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured "becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident." It also contains the following exclusion clause:
We do not provide Liability Coverage for any person . . .
ho intentionally causes bodily injury or property
damage.
The circuit court found that the injuries and damages to McLamb were intentionally caused by Mumford. Since there is evidence to support this finding of fact, we affirm it on appeal. The court then held that the intentional act exclusion of South Carolina Farm Bureau's policy excluded coverage for the collision.
This appeal presents a question of first impression in the South Carolina courts: does the Financial Responsibility Act mandate coverage for intentional acts of the insured? If it does, then the Act prevails over the terms of the insurance contract and the collision with McLamb is covered by Mumford's liability insurance policy with South Carolina Farm Bureau. See Hogan v. Home Insurance Company, 260 S.C. 157, 194 S.E.2d 890 (1973) (if provision in automobile policy excluding coverage conflicts with requirements of statute, statute controls).
We hold that the Act does mandate coverage in this case. The statute requires any automobile insurance policy issued in this State to insure against "loss from liability imposed by law" for damages arising out of the use of a covered motor vehicle. Code Section 38-77-140. It draws no distinction between intentional acts and negligent acts of the insured — if liability for damages is "imposed by law," coverage
This interpretation of Section 38-77-140 is supported by other provisions of the Financial Responsibility Act. Code Sections 56-9-20(7)(c) and 38-77-220 list certain exclusions which may properly be placed in an automobile liability policy. Neither section lists an intentional acts exclusion. This omission suggests such an exclusion is not valid. See Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Parker, 282 S.C. 546, 320 S.E.2d 458 (Ct. App. 1984) (exceptions made in a statute give rise to strong inference that no other exceptions were intended).
Additionally, Code Section 38-77-310 expressly authorizes an intentional acts exclusion for
The decision of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Nationwide Mutu
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.
|
|