Carter v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1271

Decision Date15 November 1988
Docket NumberNo. 1271,1271
Citation375 S.E.2d 356,297 S.C. 218
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesRichard E. CARTER, Appellant, v. AMERICAN MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. . Heard

Ray L. Derrick, of Funderburk & Derrick, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeter E. Rhodes, Jr. and G.D. Morgan, Jr., both of Whaley, McCutchen, Blanton & Rhodes, Columbia, for respondent.

SHAW, Judge:

Appellant, Richard E. Carter, sued respondent, American Mutual Fire Insurance Company, for breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay insurance benefits arising from the insurance company's denial of Carter's claim under a fire insurance policy. The jury returned a verdict for the insurance company. From a denial of Carter's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Carter appeals. We affirm.

In ruling on a trial judge's denial of motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and we are not at liberty to pass upon the veracity of the witnesses and determine the case according to our view of the weight of the evidence. Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984). Our task is to determine whether sufficient evidence existed warranting submission of the case to the jury. Woodward v. Todd, 270 S.C. 82, 240 S.E.2d 641 (1978). A review of the record in the light most favorable to the insurance company reveals the following:

On November 10, 1980, a fire occurred at the home of Mr. Carter. On that day, he left his home between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. to help an employee with car trouble. Mrs. Carter and her daughter left the home sometime after Mr. Carter and went to a friend's house where the Carters were invited for dinner. Unable to repair the employee's car, Mr. Carter returned to his home and allowed the employee to take his car. The employee testified they arrived at the home around 9:30 p.m. Mr. Carter called his wife who picked him up and drove him to their friend's house. The fire was discovered at approximately 11:00 p.m. Mr. Carter returned home around 12:30 a.m.

The evidence also reveals Mr. Carter was experiencing financial difficulties at the time of the fire. His home had been listed for sale for over a year and was still for sale at the time of the fire. There were two mortgages on the home. He also had both a federal and state tax lien filed against him. A background investigation revealed Mr. Carter was having trouble paying credit card accounts.

Finally, three defense experts testified the fire was intentionally set. They opined a flammable liquid was poured on the floor. One of the experts testified it was possible the fire was set prior to 9:00 that evening if a delaying device were used.

The insurance company relied on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 1999
    ...fire. See Rutledge v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 286 S.C. 360, 334 S.E.2d 131 (Ct.App.1985). In Carter v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 297 S.C. 218, 375 S.E.2d 356 (Ct.App.1988), this Court set forth the elements of civil arson: "`An insurance company can prevail in an arson defense......
  • State v. Harry, 2461
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 8, 1995
    ...and changes in insurance coverage by defendant's mother to include coverage for all personalty); cf. Carter v. American Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 297 S.C. 218, 375 S.E.2d 356 (Ct.App.1988) (in civil arson case, court affirmed denial of insured's directed verdict motion where insurer presented e......
  • Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 20, 2001
    ...the preponderance of the evidence the fire was of an incendiary origin, and the insured caused the fire. Carter v. Am. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 297 S.C. 218, 375 S.E.2d 356 (Ct.App.1988). An insurer can prevail in an arson defense based solely on circumstantial evidence if it shows the fire was ......
  • State v. Lollis
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 29, 2001
    ...two weeks prior to fire, and defendant provided his insurer with false information concerning his losses); Carter v. Am. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 297 S.C. 218, 375 S.E.2d 356 (Ct.App.1988) (trial judge correctly denied motion for directed verdict where there was evidence of defendant's financial......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT