 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coakley v. Horace Mann Insurance Co.1/24/2005
opher testified that he paid these expenses. When conflicting testimony is presented, the trial court is in a better position to determine credibility. See Epperly v. Epperly, 312 S.C. 411, 414, 440 S.E.2d 884, 885-886 (1994). Therefore, we find there is evidence which supports the trial court's ruling that Christopher was not a dependent of Dee Dee.
The trial court's ruling that Christopher did not "live with" Dee Dee is supported by our case law. The residency test in South Carolina is found in Buddin v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 250 S.C. 332, 157 S.E.2d 633 (1967). In Buddin, the supreme court noted that a "resident of the same household is one, other than a temporary or transient visitor, who lives together with others in the same house for a period of some duration, although he may not intend to remain there permanently." Id. at 339, 157 S.E.2d at 636 (citations omitted). Because Christopher did not live in the same household as Dee Dee, he would not qualify as a resident relative under this test. Several cases have elaborated on the Buddin test, but none of them would have found Christopher to reside with Dee Dee. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's finding that he was not her dependent, and he did not live with her for purposes of the policies.
Because there is evidence in the record to support its conclusion, we agree with the trial court that the RX-7 was a "non-owned car" within the meaning of the policies. It is undisputed that upon such a finding, the other three policies become applicable as excess coverage. Thus, the only remaining issue is the amount of coverage.
IV. Amount of Coverage
The trial court found that all three policies applied and could be stacked. The general rule is that stacking of liability coverage is permitted unless limited by statute or by a valid policy provision. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moorer, 330 S.C. 46, 60, 496 S.E.2d 875, 883 (Ct. App. 1998). A policy provision that purports to limit stacking of statutorily required coverage is invalid. Id. Although liability coverage is required, non-owned vehicle coverage is not and, therefore, may be limited by contract. Id. Therefore, the question is whether the policy language effectively prohibited stacking.
The trial court based its ruling on a plain reading of the policy provisions located in the amendatory endorsements under the heading "If There is Other Coverage" reproduced below:
1. Policies Issued by Us to You
If two or more vehicle liability policies issued by us to you apply to the same accident, the total limits of liability under all such policies shall not exceed that of the policy with the highest limit of liability.
2. Other Liability Coverage Available From Other Sources
Subject to item 1, if other vehicle liability coverage applies, we are liable only for our share of the damages. Our share is the percent that the limit of liability of this policy bears to the total of all vehicle liability coverage applicable to the accident.
3. Temporary Substitute Car, Non-Owned Car, Trailer
If a temporary substitute car, a non-owned car or a trailer designed for use with a private passenger car or utility vehicle has other vehicle liability coverage on it, then this coverage is excess.
(emphasis in original).
Specifically, the trial court found these provisions clearly and unambiguously provided excess coverage for non-owned vehicles. In so ruling, the trial court read paragraph three as being independent of the limitation contained in paragraph one. The court reasoned that if the drafters of the policy intended the limitations of paragrap
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|