Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co., 25253.

Citation344 S.C. 21,542 S.E.2d 723
Decision Date20 February 2001
Docket NumberNo. 25253.,25253.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesTommy E. BROWN, Sr., Petitioner, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

James C. Cothran, Jr. and Robert M. Holland, both of Spartanburg, for petitioner.

Richard L. Patton, of Patton & Associates, of Greenville, for respondent.

TOAL, Chief Justice:

We granted Tommy E. Brown's ("Brown") petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co., 337 S.C. 499, 523 S.E.2d 807 (Ct.App.1999). We reverse.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 13, 1995, Brown's car stopped on U.S. Highway 29 between Cowpens and Gaffney in Cherokee County, South Carolina. He parked the car on the side of the road and left it overnight. The following morning, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Brown's 1984 Chevrolet Corvette was found burning. The car was a total loss as a result of the fire and was taken to the salvage yard. All parties agree the car was intentionally burned.

Prior to the fire, Brown's car was in pristine condition. Mr. Hamrick, the owner of Hamrick's Used Cars and Trucks, was familiar with the car and testified his son detailed the car one month prior to the fire. According to Mr. Hamrick, the car was in mint condition and it had many expensive additions, such as an excellent stereo system and "ground effects." Mr. Mathis, a mechanic who worked on the car for eleven years, testified Brown kept the car in near perfect condition. Mr. Mathis saw the car on the day of the incident and testified the engine was in good condition.

Brown filed a claim with Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), his insurer, for the value of the car. Allstate denied the claim contending the car burned as a result of arson by, or at the direction of, Brown. According to Allstate, Brown was guilty of misrepresentation and bad faith by asserting a false claim. Allstate averred Brown had both the motive and opportunity to set the fire, and Brown misrepresented or concealed his involvement.

On October 12, 1995, Brown brought a civil action against Allstate for breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay benefits. During the bench trial, Melinda Brown, Browns' exwife, testified Brown knew the engine was having problems prior to the fire, but he did not have enough money to fix it. The trial court did not find Melinda Brown's testimony credible because she smiled at inappropriate times during her testimony, did not recall the parties exchanged criminal warrants prior to her contacting the insurance company, and she appeared to "gain some strange pleasure from her testimony against [Brown]." The trial court disregarded her testimony as unreliable and biased.

On February 10, 1998, the trial court found in favor of Brown for breach of contract and required Allstate to pay $25,000 for his automobile. The trial court dismissed the cause of action for bad faith refusal to pay benefits because several factors justified Allstate's initial refusal to pay benefits, including: (1) there were traces of gasoline in the carpet padding; (2) the stereo and alloy wheels had not been stolen; (3) there were inconsistencies in Brown's testimony; and (4) a statement by Brown's ex-wife that attempted to establish a motive for the fire.

The trial court found, and Brown and Allstate agreed, the fire was of an incendiary nature and intentionally set. The trial court further held Brown had opportunity to set the fire, but Allstate failed to establish a sufficient motive for burning the automobile. The trial court found it persuasive that the morning after Brown parked his car on the side of the road, he went to his usual repair shop to make arrangements to have the car towed, and apparently did not realize it had burned. Further, the trial court found the trial testimony indicated Brown "babied" his car and would have done nothing to harm it.

During the trial, over Allstate's objection, the trial judge allowed Brown to testify he had not been criminally charged with arson, aiding or abetting arson, or conspiracy to commit arson. Allstate appealed alleging the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning the State's decision not to prosecute Brown for arson. The Court of Appeals reversed holding: (1) as a matter of first impression, evidence of the State's failure to prosecute the insured for arson was inadmissible; (2) this error required reversal; and (3) the presumption of regularity of proceedings in a bench trial did not apply.

The following issue is before this Court on certiorari:

Did the trial judge err in receiving evidence the State did not charge or prosecute Brown for arson?
LAW/ANALYSIS

Brown and Allstate concede the trial judge received incompetent evidence when he allowed Brown to testify he had not been prosecuted for arson or related crimes. We agree with the Court of Appeals' opinion and recent case law that evidence of non-prosecution for criminal arson is irrelevant and immaterial in a civil case for fire insurance proceeds. See Rabon v. Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co., 818 F.2d 306 (4th Cir.1987)

(holding a federal trial court committed reversible error when it permitted a plaintiff in a suit for fire insurance proceeds to present evidence of his non-prosecution or acquittal on related criminal arson charges); see also Kelly's Auto Parts, No. 1, Inc. v. Boughton, 809 F.2d 1247 (6th Cir.1987); Am. Home Assurance Co., v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc., 753 F.2d 321 (3d Cir.1985); Kamenov v. N. Assurance Co. of Am., 259 A.D.2d 958, 687 N.Y.S.2d 838 (1999); Cook v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 217 Mich.App. 414, 552 N.W.2d 661 (1996); Krueger v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 510 N.W.2d 204 (Minn.Ct. App.1993); 19 Couch On Insurance 2d Evidence § 79:571 (Rev. ed. 1983 & Supp.1999) (indictment of insured for arson, or failure to indict him or her for such crime, is irrelevant and inadmissible in action on a fire insurance policy where the defense is the insured caused the fire).

According to the court in Rabon, evidence of criminal charges related to arson is excluded in suits for fire insurance proceeds because such evidence goes to the principal issue before the court and is highly prejudicial. Rabon, 818 F.2d at 309. Furthermore, a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute and a jury's decision to acquit in a criminal trial are based on different criteria than those that apply in a civil proceeding. Id. "In particular, a prosecutor's decision to nolle prosse may take into account many factors irrelevant in a civil suit, such as the higher standard of proof required for a criminal conviction. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State Farm v. Carter, 2384
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 29, 2003
    ...strengthens the need for [its] exclusion." In support of his position, appellee relies primarily on Brown v. Allstate Insurance Co., 344 S.C. 21, 542 S.E.2d 723 (2001). That case does not advance his cause. There, the appellate court found that the trial court's admission of evidence of Bro......
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-03666-RBH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • May 19, 2017
    ...S.E.2d 90, 94 (2013); S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Durham, 380 S.C. 506, 511, 671 S.E.2d 610, 613 (2009); Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 S.C. 21, 25, 542 S.E.2d 723, 725 (2001). 9. But see Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 162, 176-78......
  • Firenze Imports, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 02-LW-1495
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 26, 2002
    ...Co. v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc. (C.A.3, 1985), 753 F.2d 321; Galbraith v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (C.A.3, 1972), 464 F.2d 225. Although Brown found it to be harmless error to introduce evidence non-prosecution, Cook, FIGA, Rabon, Kelly's Auto Parts, Am. Home Assurance Co., and Galbraith al......
  • Askins-Weaver v. Weaver
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 6, 2020
    ...to show the family court relied on the arguably inadmissible testimony to apportion the marital estate. See Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 S.C. 21, 25, 542 S.E.2d 723, 725 (2001) (finding no error occurred because the record contained no evidence the circuit court relied on incompetent evi......
  • 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