 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Towne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.4/7/2005
Heard April 4, 2005
REVERSED
In this civil action, Shirley Towne appeals the circuit court's grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, arguing the circuit court erred in holding judicial estoppel precluded Towne's argument to the jury. We reverse.
FACTS
In November 1999, a van driven by Bernard Stanley crossed the roadway's center line and hit a vehicle driven by Towne, causing her to suffer various injuries. In November 2001, Towne initiated this action claiming personal injury and defamation. In her complaint, Towne asserted Clean It, Inc., doing business as Pro Clean, owned the van driven by Stanley. Pro Clean filed an answer admitting ownership of the vehicle driven by Stanley and admitting the accident occurred while Stanley was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Pro Clean. State Farm filed an answer and counterclaim, questioning whether its commercial liability policy issued to Pro Clean provided coverage for the accident.
In December 2001, State Farm proposed a settlement, offering Towne the limits of Pro Clean's liability policy as well as Towne's underinsured motorist coverage. Towne accepted the settlement and executed a covenant and agreement not to execute in consideration for the payment of the limits of Pro Clean's policy in the amount of $100,000.00. Towne also obtained payment of an additional $100,000.00 from her underinsured motorist carrier in exchange for a policy release. In executing both settlement agreements, Towne made certain factual representations, including the assertion that the vehicle operated by Stanley was owned by Pro Clean. The covenant and agreement not to execute and the policy release made no assertions or representations that the vehicle driven by Stanley was owned or "non-owned" under State Farm's commercial liability policy issued to Pro Clean. Towne specifically reserved the right to pursue recovery in the settlement documents under the commercial liability policy and that was the sole issue for consideration in State Farm's declaratory judgment action.
When the declaratory judgment action proceeded to trial, Towne argued the vehicle driven by Stanley in the accident constituted a "non-owned" vehicle under the definition provided in State Farm's commercial liability policy issued to Pro Clean. State Farm moved for a directed verdict based on judicial estoppel, arguing that Towne was precluded from asserting the vehicle was "non-owned" under the commercial liability policy because she had previously asserted that Pro Clean owned the vehicle. The circuit court denied the motion, holding judicial estoppel was inapplicable to this action because Towne had not persuaded a court to accept her earlier position regarding ownership of the vehicle and was not attempting to mislead the court with a new position. The issue was submitted to the jury, which found the vehicle to be "non-owned" under the definition found in the policy. State Farm moved for JNOV, arguing Towne should be judicially estopped from arguing the "non-owned" vehicle exception to the jury because she had previously asserted that Pro Clean owned the vehicle involved in the accident. The motion was granted by the circuit court. Towne timely appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In ruling on a motion for JNOV, the trial judge should not disturb the factual findings of a jury unless a review of the record discloses no evidence that reasonably supports them. Horry County v. Laychur, 315 S.C. 364, 367, 434 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1993). "The jury verdict will be upheld if there is any evidence to sustain the factual findings implicit in th
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.
|
|