C. I. T. Financial Services v. Hunt, 20324

• Decision Date: 08 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 20324,20324
• Citation: 267 S.C. 644,230 S.E.2d 713
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: C.I.T. FINANCIAL SERVICES, Appellant, v. Lula Mae HUNT et al., Respondent.

Page 713

230 S.E.2d 713

267 S.C. 644

C.I.T. FINANCIAL SERVICES, Appellant, v. Lula Mae HUNT et al., Respondent.

No. 20324.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 8, 1976.

J. Wesley Drawdy and William J. Nicholson, of Drawdy & Nicholson, Columbia, for appellant.

Richard M. Kennedy, Jr., of Kennedy & Price, Columbia, for respondent.

RHODES, Justice.

There is presented by this appeal the question of whether the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment to respondent Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) and awarding appellant C.I.T. Financial Services (C.I.T.) the sum of $516.00 as loss payee under an Allstate insurance policy. We reverse and remand.

This action was brought by C.I.T. against Lula Mae and Johnnie R. Hunt and Allstate in the Richland County Court. The Complaint alleged that C.I.T. made an installment loan to the Hunts on August 8, 1974, in the amount of $2,114.29. As collateral for the loan, the Hunts granted C.I.T. a security interest in a 1972 Dodge pick-up truck. As a condition for the loan, the Hunts were required to purchase insurance on the truck.

Lula Mae Hunt purchased a physical damage policy of insurance from Allstate, naming C.I.T. as loss payee. The Complaint alleged that the truck was subsequently destroyed and that, at the time of loss, the Allstate policy was in full force and effect. It was further alleged by C.I.T. that the amount due and owing on the Hunt's note at the time of the loss was $2,294. Judgment in that amount was sought by C.I.T.

The case was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment. Allstate's motion was premised on the argument that the amount of a prior lien on the truck, as well as salvage value, should be deducted from the fair market value of the vehicle at the time of loss, resulting in an obligation to C.I.T. of $516.00. The court considered the motions on the basis of the pleadings and exhibits submitted by the parties and granted Allstate's motion. The court awarded judgment to C.I.T. in the amount of $516.00. It is from this judgment that C.I.T. appeals.

Granting a party's motion for summary judgment is proper only when there is 'no genuine issue as to any material fact . . .' and 'the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . .' Circuit Court Rule 44(c). As is required under the Rule, we have viewed the materials which were before the court in the light most favorable to C.I.T., the party against whom Allstate's motion was made and granted. Abrams v. Wright...