 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brunson v. Long7/15/2005
Heard June 17, 2005
REVERSED
South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company appeals a trial court's order finding Ashley Brunson's injuries were covered under the underinsured motorist provision of her mother's automobile insurance policy. We reverse.
FACTS
Ashley Brunson was a passenger in an automobile owned by Megan Hickey when it was involved in an accident. Brunson suffered injuries as a result of the accident and sought coverage under the underinsured motorist portion of a policy issued to her mother, Connie Long, by South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau).
Part II of Long's policy describes her uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. This section provides: "We will pay damages for bodily injury or property damage a covered person is legally entitled to collect from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle." Part II also provides definitions for various terms used in Part II. This section defines a "covered person" as "a. you and any family member; b. any other person occupying your covered auto; c. any legal representative for damages sustained by persons described in a. or b. above, under any wrongful death statute." Long's policy also contains a separate definition section for the entire policy. This section defines "you" and "your" as "the named insured shown on the Declarations; and the spouse if a resident of the same household." This section also defines "family member" as "a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household. This includes a ward or foster child."
Only Long's name appeared under "Named Insured" on the policy's declaration sheet. The only vehicle included on the policy's declaration sheet was a 1999 Chevrolet Blazer. The declaration sheet listed Brunson as a "Driver Listed on the Vehicle."
After Brunson submitted her claim for coverage, Farm Bureau informed her she was not entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under Long's policy. Brunson filed suit against Farm Bureau seeking a declaratory judgment to determine coverage under the policy. The trial court determined the language in the policy was ambiguous because it did not address the rights and responsibilities of a listed driver. Due to this ambiguity, the trial court held as a matter of law that the policy afforded underinsured motorist benefits to listed drivers. Farm Bureau filed a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, which the trial court denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"A suit for declaratory judgment is neither legal nor equitable, but is determined by the nature of the underlying issue." Doe v. South Carolina Med. Malpractice Liab. Joint Underwriting Ass'n, 347 S.C. 642, 645, 557 S.E.2d 670, 672 (2001) (quoting Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 356, 400 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1991)). "An action to determine coverage under an insurance policy is an action at law." South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 344 S.C. 525, 528-29, 544 S.E.2d 848, 849 (Ct. App. 2001). In an action at law, tried without a jury, our review extends only to the correction of error of law. Kemp v. Rawlings, 358 S.C. 28, 34, 594 S.E.2d 845, 848 (2004). Therefore, we will not disturb the trial court's findings of fact unless they are wholly unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law. McInnis v. McInnis, 348 S.C. 585, 589, 560 S.E.2d 632, 634 (Ct. App. 2002).
LAW/ANALYSIS
1. Ambiguity
Farm Bureau argues the trial court erred in finding the language in Long's policy ambiguous, and thus, it erred in interpreting the language in the policy to find underinsured mo
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|