 |
 |
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
ction was whether the vehicle involved in the accident qualified as a "non-owned" vehicle under the definition provided in State Farm's commercial liability policy. An assertion of ownership made by Towne in pleadings or in settlement documents does not preclude adjudication of that separate contract issue, nor does it preclude a finding that the vehicle qualified under the definition found in the policy. Therefore, there was no intentional effort to mislead the court by Towne and without an intentional effort to mislead the court judicial estoppel cannot apply.
II. Additional Sustaining Grounds
State Farm advances three additional sustaining grounds to allow this court to affirm the trial court's grant of JNOV in the event we find judicial estoppel inapplicable to the facts of this case. Essentially, State Farm alleges Towne should be judicially bound by her pleadings. We find this argument to be without merit.
We hold any representations made by Towne in her pleadings in regard to the ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident are separate and distinct from the issue of whether the vehicle constitutes an exception to the "non-owned" vehicle coverage afforded in State Farm's commercial liability policy issued to Pro Clean. Therefore, any representations made by Towne in her pleadings have no bearing on whether the vehicle constitutes a "non-owned" vehicle under the definition found in the commercial liability policy and do not judicially bind Towne in the declaratory judgment action.
REVERSED.
ANDERSON, BEATTY and SHORT, JJ., concur.
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.
|
|