Brown v. Coastal States Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 19989,19989 |
| Citation | 213 S.E.2d 726,264 S.C. 190 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Nina BROWN et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COASTAL STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and the South Atlantic Life InsuranceCompany, Defendants, of which Coastal States Life Insurance Company is theAppellant. Nina BROWN and Donald Padgett, a minor under the age of fourteen years, by hisguardian ad litem, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COASTAL STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and the South Atlantic Life InsuranceCompany, Defendants, of which Coastal States Life Insurance Company is theAppellant. Nina BROWN and Mae Leta Collins, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COASTAL STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and the South Atlantic Life InsuranceCompany, Defendants, of which Coastal States Life Insurance Company is theAppellant. Nina BROWN and Elaine Brown, a minor under the age of fourteen years, by herguardian ad litem, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COASTAL STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and the South Atlantic Life InsuranceCompany, Defendants, of which Coastal States Life Insurance Company is theAppellant. Nina BROWN et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COASTAL STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and the South Atlantic Life InsuranceCompany, Defendants, of which Coastal States Life Insurance Company is theAppellant. Nina BROWN et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COASTAL STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and the South Atlantic Life InsuranceCompany, Defendants, of which Coastal States Life Insurance Company is theAppellant. (Six cases) |
McKay, Sherrill, Walker, Townsend & Wilkins, Columbia, for appellant.
Robert A. Bullock, Columbia, for plaintiffs-respondents.
The plaintiffs-respondents initiated these six actions alleging 'conspiracy to defraud' and 'fraudulent breach or fraudulent lapse of insurance policy or policies' on the part of the defendants, Coastal States Life Insurance Company and the South Atlantic Life Insurance Company. In each case the plaintiffs are seeking $15,000 actual and punitive damages.
The lower court struck from the Answers of Coastal allegations of facts which occurred after the action was commenced. Coastal has appealed.
The actions were commenced on October 17, 1968, by service of Summonses only (as permitted by our Code) upon the Chief Insurance Commissioner of South Carolina.
The Summonses were filed in the office of the Clerk of Court for Richland County on October 24, 1968. The Complaints were not served until August 27, 1969.
The Complaints allege that the defendants wrongfully, illegally and fraudulently cancelled or lapsed their policies and did not give to them credit for premiums paid for the period from February 12, 1968 to the commencement of the action on October 17, 1968. The Complaints further allege that agents of the two defendant companies wrongfully, illegally and fraudulently represented to Plaintiffs that their policies had been cancelled and that they would have to take other policies from South Atlantic as a substitute for Coastal's policies which they held, all to their damage.
The Answers of Coastal set forth a general denial, and further alleged as a defense that plaintiffs sustained no damages as a result of the facts alleged in the Complaints for the reason that said policies were unconditionally reinstated on October 23, 1968, and that plaintiffs' attorney was advised of said reinstatement by letter from the defendants' attorney dated October 25, 1968. The Answers further allege that the premiums due November 4, 1968 on the policies for the period from October 28 to November 4, 1968, were not paid, and, after the statutory period of grace, the policies went out of benefit and lapsed according to their terms on November 25, 1968. The Answers incorporated by annexation four letters from Coastal's attorney to the attorney for the plaintiffs: (1) letter dated October 25, 1968, advising that the policies had been reinstated as of October 23, 1968; (2) letter of November 1, 1968, advising that the premiums would be due on November 4, and advising that a representative of Coastal would call for the premiums at a location to be designated by the plaintiffs; (3) letter of November 19, 1968, advising that November 24 was the last day of the grace period, and advising that the policies could be kept continuously in force; and (4) letter of December 6, 1968, advising that the policies went out of benefit on November 25 because of failure to pay premiums. It is further alleged that plaintiffs' damages, if any, arising out of the final termination of the policies upon which the Complaints are based, were caused by failure of the plaintiffs to resume payment of premiums so as to continue the protection provided in the policies.
Counsel for the plaintiffs moved to strike from Coastal's Answers allegations referring to reinstatement of the policies in question which took place after the service of the Summonses, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells Fargo Bank, NA, v. Smith
...and the matter of admissibility of evidence is largely within the discretion of the trial judge.” Brown v. Coastal States Life Ins. Co., 264 S.C. 190, 194, 213 S.E.2d 726, 728 (1975). “The granting or refusal of a[m]otion to strike ... will not be reversed except for an abuse of discretion ......
-
Gates at Williams-Brice Condo. Ass'n v. DDC Constr., Inc.
...abuse of discretion or unless the action of the [circuit court] was controlled by an error of law." Brown v. Coastal States Life Ins. Co. , 264 S.C. 190, 194–95, 213 S.E.2d 726, 728 (1975). Appellate courts may decide questions of law with no particular deference to the circuit court's find......
-
Robinson v. Code
...However, the matter of striking from a pleading is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Brown v. Coastal States Life Ins. Co., 264 S.C. 190, 194, 213 S.E.2d 726, 728 (1975). Thus, the grant of a motion to strike will not be reversed except for an abuse of discretion or error of......