Carroway v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 12 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 18290,18290 |
| Citation | 245 S.C. 200,139 S.E.2d 908 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bessie CARROWAY, Respondent, v. Elizabeth S. JOHNSON and National Surety Corporation, of whom National Surety Corporation is Appellant. |
McEachin, Townsend & Zeigler, Florence, for appellant.
James P. Mozingo, III, D. Kenneth Baker, Thomas R. Smith, Darlington, for respondent.
Bessie Carroway, plaintiff herein, instituted an action against Elizabeth S. Johnson for injuries arising out of an automobile collision. Said action resulted in judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.00 actual damages and $1500.00 punitive damages. Defendant's insurer, National Surety Corporation, Appellant herein, declined to defend her in that action and refused to pay the judgment obtained, relying upon the employee exclusion clause of the policy.
This appeal arises out of an action by Bessie Carroway against Elizabeth S. Johnson and National Surety Corporation to recover the amount of the aforesaid judgment together with costs and interest. The jury in this case found for plaintiff and held National Surety Corporation liable.
Plaintiff introduced into the record her judgment against the insured over defendant's objection to so much thereof as related to punitive damages. Thereafter motions were made to strike out the claim for punitive damages and for a directed verdict as to such damages; these motions were denied. Upon conclusion of the trial, defendant moved for judgment n. o. v. as to the punitive damage portion of the verdict on the grounds the complaint does not allege that defendant is liable for punitive damages and that the policy of insurance issued by defendant does not afford coverage for punitive damages. Judge Morrison, by his Order of March 13, 1964, denied this motion, and the matter now comes before this Court on appeal from such Order.
In the complaint plaintiff sought to hold defendant liable for the entire amount of judgment she had secured against defendant's insured. The amount of the judgment, the Judgment Roll Number, and the date it was filed in the Office of the Clerk of Court for Florence County were fully set forth. No motion was made by defendant to make the pleadings more definite and certain or to strike any part thereof as provided for by Section 10-606, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962. The complaint appraised defendant of the nature and extent of the action including the amount plaintiff sought to recover including the amount of the verdict which related to punitive damages. Defendant's contention thereabout is, therefore, without merit.
The remaining question is whether or not punitive damages may be recovered by plaintiff under the policy issued to defendant's insured. By the terms of the policy defendant agrees 'To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of: A. bodily injury * * * sustained by any person * * * arising out of the * * * use of the owned automobile or any non-owned automobile * * *.' Defendant relies on the recent case of Laird v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 243 S.C. 388, 134 S.E.2d 206, in which this Court held that the uninsured motorist law and a policy of insurance issued to conform therewith do not provide for payment of punitive damages arising out of a collision with an uninsured motorist.
Discussing the distinction between uninsured motorist coverage and a voluntary liability policy in the Laird case, this Court stated:
The question here involved must be considered in the light of the well settled rule that the terms of an insurance policy must be construed most liberally in favor of the insured and where the words of the policy are ambiguous, or where they are capable of two reasonable interpretations, that construction will be adopted which is most favorable to the insured. However, in cases where there is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. WR Grace & Co.
...Carolina. In South Carolina, Grace submits, Maryland's policies cover the punitive damage award in Greenville. Carroway v. Johnson, 245 S.C. 200, 139 S.E.2d 908, 910 (1965). But even in New York, Grace adds, coverage depends on the precise nature of the punitive damage award. Grace submits ......
-
Wells v. Smith
...Pickands Mather & Co., 54 Ohio App.2d 177, 376 N.E.2d 965 (1977); Barnes v. McKinney, 589 P.2d 698 (Okl.App.1978); Carroway v. Johnson, 245 S.C. 200, 139 S.E.2d 908 (1965); O'Brien v. Snow, 215 Va. 403, 210 S.E.2d 165 (1974). See also Enright v. Groves, 39 Colo.App. 39, 560 P.2d 851 (1977);......
-
Hensley v. Erie Ins. Co.
...sub nom., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Morrell, 264 U.S. 572, 44 S.Ct. 401, 68 L.Ed. 855 (1924); Carroway v. Johnson, 245 S.C. 200, 139 S.E.2d 908 (1965); Lazenby v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 214 Tenn. 639, 383 S.W.2d 1 (1964); Dairyland County Mutual Insuran......
-
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University
...345 F.Supp. 1090 (D.Me.1972); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 326 F.Supp. 931 (D.S.C.1971) (following Carroway v. Johnson, 245 S.C. 200, 139 S.E.2d 908 (1965)); American Fid. & Casualty Co. v. Werfel, 230 Ala. 552, 162 So. 103 (1935); Providence Wash. Ins. Co. v. City of Valdez,......
-
Punitive damages: when, where and how they are covered.
...Insurance Co. v. Hamilton, 326 F.Supp. 931 (D. S.C. 1971) (punitive damages are insurable under South Carolina law). Carroway v. Johnson, 139 S.E.2d 908 (S.C. 1965) (automobile liability policy covered punitive damages South Dakota City of Fort Pierre v. United Fire and Casualty Co., 463 N.......
-
Chapter Eleven
...246 Ark. 849, 440 S.W.2d 582 (1969) (punitive damages constitute a sum the insured becomes legally obligated to pay); Carroway v. Johnson, 245 S.C. 200, 139 S.E.2d 908 (1965) (punitive damages are included in the “sums” the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily in......