Buddin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 November 1967
• Docket Number: No. 18723,18723
• Citation: 250 S.C. 332,157 S.E.2d 633
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Alton E. BUDDIN, Jr., and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Page 633

157 S.E.2d 633

250 S.C. 332

Alton E. BUDDIN, Jr., and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 18723.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 6, 1967.

Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, for appellants. Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for respondent.

MOSS, Chief Justice.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, the respondent herein, on October 10, 1965, had in force and effect a policy of liability insurance in which Horace E. Buddin was the named insured. The pertinent portion of the aforesaid policy is as follows:

'(3) Coverages * * * shall extend to any other land motor vehicle * * * while used by the Policyholder first named in the Declarations, (Horace E. Buddin) if an individual, or by his spouse and the relatives of either if a resident of the same household. Those entitled to protection under this extension of coverage * * * are:

(a) the Policyholder.

(b) any relative resident of the same household,'

Alton E. Buddin, Jr., on October 10, 1965, was operating an uninsured automobile owned by one James Hill and, as a result of his negligent operation of said motor vehicle certain injuries were occasioned to Timothy DeBoe and Margaret McSwain. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company paid to the aforesaid injured parties the total sum of $2,000.00, such having been made by virtue of the uninsured motorist provision contained in its policy issued on the automobile in which Timothy DeBoe and Margaret McSwain were riding. It is stipulated that Aetna paid the aforesaid amount after the respondent agreed that such constituted a fair and equitable settlement.

This action was commenced by Aetna and Alton E. Buddin, Jr. seeking a recovery of the aforesaid sum of $2,000.00, and alleging that Alton E. Buddin, Jr. was a nephew of Horace E. Buddin and was a resident of the same household at the time of the aforesaid accident. It was further alleged that since Alton E. Buddin, Jr. was a relative of and a resident of the same household with Horace E. Buddin, liability coverage under the aforesaid policy was extended to any vehicle used by Alton E. Buddin, Jr. The respondent denied coverage to Alton E. Buddin, Jr. as an additional insured under the policy issued to Horace E. Buddin.

This case came on for trial before The Honorable James H. Price, Jr., Judge of the Greenville County Court, and a jury, at the December 1966 term of court. During the trial it was agreed that one issue only was presented and that was: 'Were Horace E. Buddin and Alton E. Buddin, Jr. relative residents of the same household on October 10, 1965.' At the close of all the testimony Alton E. Buddin, Jr. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the appellants, made a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimony was that Horace E. Buddin and Alton E. Buddin, Jr. were relative residents of the same household on October 10, 1965 and, therefore, Alton E. Buddin, Jr. was afforded coverage as an additional insured under a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by the respondent to Horace E. Buddin. This motion was refused and the trial judge submitted the question to the jury and a verdict in favor of the respondent was returned. Thereafter, the appellant made a timely motion for judgment Non obstante veredicto. Such was refused and this appeal followed.

It appears from the record that the father of Alton E. Buddin, Jr. owned a home on Vintage Avenue in Greenville, South Carolina. Alton had lived in this home for ten or twelve years. His mother died in 1962 and his father died in February, 1964. After the death of Alton's father, this home was purchased by Horace E. Buddin, a bachelor uncle of Alton and a brother of his deceased father. Alton's father died while he was a student at Clemson University and while he remained in school from February through May, 1964, he returned to Greenville and spent several weekends with his uncle. Upon leaving Clemson University in May of 1964, Alton stayed with his uncle for approximately two months before leaving for California to seek employment. Upon returning from California in March, 1965, he stayed in the home of his uncle seven or eight days, then moved to Orvin Court because he was interfering with the schedule of his uncle, staying there from March, 1965, until he moved into a trailer with a friend, and then he moved in with his uncle in August of 1965, being at that time without employment, where he remained until December 28, 1965.

During the time that Alton resided with his uncle in 1965, and while employed, he made certain weekly contributions towards the household expenses. While Alton was living with his uncle he was not restricted to any portion of the house. He watched television when he pleased and used his uncle's washing machine. He had no furniture and used his uncle's. Alton and his uncle kept different schedules and ate most of their meals away from home; however, when they were at home at the same time they did eat their meals together. Separate provisions were not bought and Alton would eat the food purchased by his uncle. They used the same bath and had a common mailbox and telephone. The uncle testified that he loved Alton as a member of his family; that he gave him money to purchase food and clothing when he needed it and helped him find a job. He said he felt an obligation to his nephew and tried to advise him as to his actions. He admitted that he did not expect any money for household expenses when Alton was not working and charged only token rent when he was. He testified that the amount Alton was asked to pay was simply to teach him a little responsibility. It appears that the expense arrangement was so indefinite that neither Alton nor his uncle remembered how much Alton contributed each week to the household expenses. At the time of the accident, on October 10, 1965, Alton was living with his uncle and they were the only occupants of the home. Alton was not looking for another place to live and had no intention of moving.

It is a well established rule of law in passing upon the exceptions of the appellant to the refusal of the trial judge to grant their motions for a directed verdict and judgment Non obstante veredicto, it is incumbent upon this court to view the evidence and inferences fairly deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the respondent. If more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence the case must be submitted to the jury. However, if the evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable inference the question is no longer for the jury but one of law for the court. Carter v. Beals, 248 S.C. 526, 151 S.E.2d 671.

The insurance policy here included Horace E. Buddin as the named insured and as an additional insured 'any relative resident of the same household.' Any person qualifying as a resident of the same household of the insured is an additional insured under the policy. The policy here is one that extends coverage and includes as an insured any relative resident of the same...