 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coakley v. Horace Mann Insurance Co.1/24/2005
h one to apply to paragraph three, they would have expressly included the limitation, or some reference to it, in paragraph three. Alternatively, the trial court held that if it was possible to read paragraph one as qualifying paragraph three, then it was just as reasonable to read paragraph three as qualifying paragraph one. Thus, the court reasoned that when an insurance policy is ambiguous it must be construed in a light most favorable to the insured. Accordingly, the trial court held that the policies provided liability coverage for Scott in the amount of $350,000.
Appellants, on the other hand, argue that the limitation of paragraph one qualifies the non-owned coverage provided by paragraph three. According to the Appellants, even if the trial court found the policies provided excess coverage, because Horace Mann issued all three policies to Dee Dee, coverage should have been limited to the policy with the highest limit or $250,000. We disagree.
Initially, we note this court considered similar policy language in Moorer and found in that case it effectively prohibited stacking of non-owned coverage. However, while the policy language in Moorer is identical to that in the current policies, there are a number of significant differences in the two cases. Id. at 59, 496 S.E.2d at 882. For instance, in Moorer, only the first and third paragraphs are excerpted. In addition, the heading of the third paragraph, while couched in the same language as the current policies, is neither bolded nor italicized as it is in the policies under consideration. Id.
We find these differences make the cases distinguishable. As the trial court noted, the second paragraph concerning "Other Liability Coverage" specifically references the limitation of paragraph one. Thus reading the provisions together one could easily come to the conclusion that because paragraph two references the limitation and paragraph three does not, paragraph three is not subject to the limitation. In addition, because the heading of paragraph three in the current case is in bold print and italicized, it supports the trial court's interpretation that it is intentionally set off from the other provisions and meant to be read as existing independently. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court's interpretation of the policies.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we find sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's ruling that the additional policies provided excess coverage for Christian's injuries. Therefore, the trial court's ruling is
AFFIRMED.
GOOLSBY, J., concurs.
HEARN, C.J., dissents in a separate opinion.
HEARN, C.J., dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would hold that Christopher was a resident relative of his mother at the time of the accident.
The majority's decision to affirm is largely driven by our standard of review in a law case, i.e. whether there is any evidence to support the trial judge's decision. While I agree there is evidence supporting the trial judge's decision that Christopher was dependant on his father, I would hold the trial judge erred in not finding him dependant on his mother as well.
The uncontroverted evidence reflects that at the time of the accident in 1994, Christopher was a student at Clemson who relied on both his mother and father for financial support. Specifically, the record demonstrates that his mother contributed to his rent and was a guarantor on his lease. Although Christopher testified his father gave him a lump sum of money each semester for his tuition, the record also clearly shows that his mother contributed toward his tuition, groceries, and auto
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.
|
|