ANDERS v. S.C. FARM BUREAU
2/24/1992
the conclusion that the Defendant mailed to Plaintiff literature sufficient to constitute the offer required by statute and Wannamaker. But assuming this is not sufficient, we think such evidence, along
In determining whether sufficient advice was given to the Plaintiff, the sophistication of the applicant may be considered. One who is ignorant and unwary might require more explanation than a sophisticated applicant. In a kindred matter, the Supreme Court recognized this fact in Burwell v. S.C. National Bank, 288 S.C. 34, 340 S.E.2d 786 (1986). In that case the Court said ". . in an individual's education, business experience and intelligence are all considered."
The two issues submitted to the court for determination at this time, as taken from Defendant's brief, are as follows:
1. Is an issue of fact presented as to whether Respondent
James Anders, who is both a lawyer and a businessman,
understood underinsured-motorist coverage when such
coverage was offered to him by Appellant's agent and
when Respondent James Anders initialed rejection
blocks declining offers of such coverage?
2. Is an issue of fact presented as to whether Respondent
James Anders, who is both a lawyer and a businessman,
waived the statutory right to have underinsured-motorist
coverage explained to him?
We hold that a genuine issue of fact is involved and that the Defendant is entitled to prevail on both issues.
The order of the judge is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.