Anderson v. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 21971,21971 |
| Citation | 279 S.C. 304,306 S.E.2d 597 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Allie M. ANDERSON, Respondent, v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
Duke K. McCall, Jr., of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellant.
Richard H. Warder, Greenville, for respondent.
Appeal is taken by Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance Company from judgment entered for the respondent insured. We affirm.
This action was brought on an automobile insurance policy issued by the appellant to respondent in February 1978, to run for a period of one year. In January 1979, respondent suffered a loss and made a claim under the policy. Appellant refused to pay the claim on the basis that the policy had been cancelled in December 1978. The ground of cancellation was nonpayment of premiums.
Respondent does not deny the right of an insurer to cancel a policy for failure to pay premiums. See Section 38-37-1410(4) and 38-37-1440, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. Neither does respondent contest appellant's compliance with cancellation procedures imposed by law. Instead respondent contends that the premium at issue was not an element of the insurance contract made in February 1978, but rather a modification thereafter attempted by the appellant. We agree.
Dispute arises from a surcharge of approximately Two Hundred Forty ($240.00) Dollars which appellant sought to collect from respondent under the South Carolina Merit Rating Plan established by Regulation 69-13.1 of the Insurance Department. Vol. 25, 1979 Supp. to the 1976 Code. A surcharge of this sort is permitted under the Merit Rating Plan and is based upon driver violations that are recorded during the thirty-six (36) months immediately preceding a policy inception date. In the present case, the surcharge was based upon violations correctly appearing on the driving record of respondent's son who was an insured driver on her policy. There is no dispute that these violations all occurred prior to the date of policy renewal. It also appears that appellant was fully apprised prior to the policy date of the infractions committed by respondent's son.
Regulation 69-13.1 imposes only one clear restriction upon such surcharges, specifically declaring: "No policy shall be endorsed to reflect any mid-term change in the driving records of the operators covered by the policy ...." Since no "mid-term change" in driving record is here involved, we are left without any regulatory guidelines applicable to the facts of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...for the reason cited in the notice was therefore not authorized. Another case holding the same way is Anderson v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Ins. Co., 279 S.C. 304, 306 S.E.2d 597 (1983), which also involved an increase in premiums for traffic violations. The insurance company in that cas......
-
§ 1.13 Modification
...the modification and incurred no obligation to pay the surcharge and the insurer had no ground to cancel the policy.135--------Notes:[131] 279 S.C. 304, 306 S.E.2d 597 (1983).[132] Anderson v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 279 S.C. 304, 304-305, 306 S.E.2d 597, 597 (1983).[133] Anderson, 279 S.C......