Erie Ins. Exch. v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 22 November 2017 |
Docket Number | Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-441,Appellate Case No. 2015-001827 |
Parties | Erie Insurance Exchange, Respondent, v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Mark Allison Scoggin, and Angela Bennett Hill, Defendants, Of which Government Employees Insurance Company is the Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
REVERSED
Robert Thomas King and Edward Andrew Love, both of King, Love & Hupfer, LLC, of Florence, for Appellant.
John Dwight Hudson, of Hudson Law Offices, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.
Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) appeals the circuit court's declaration that GEICO's insurance policy issued to Mark Scoggin provided $25,000 in excess liability coverage for the underlying motor vehicle accident. In this declaratory judgment action, GEICO argues the circuit court erred in: (1) finding the vehicle operated by Scoggin was a "non-owned auto" under Scoggin's liability policy; (2) finding a clause in the "Other Insurance" provision of Scoggin's policy rendered the policy ambiguous; (3) concluding GEICO could not disclaim coverage under the terms of the policy because it issued Scoggin a Declarations Page; (4) declaring the "owned auto" and "non-owned auto" definitions violated public policy; and (5) finding Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie) was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court erred in finding that the vehicle driven, but not owned or insured, by Scoggin was a non-owned auto under his policy: State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 314 S.C. 345, 348, 444 S.E.2d 504, 505 (1994) (); Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Newman, 385 S.C. 187, 191, 684 S.E.2d 541, 543 (2009) (); Coakley v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 376 S.C. 2, 5-6, 656 S.E.2d 17, 18-19 (2007) (per curiam) (); Sloan Const. Co. v. Cent. Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha, 269 S.C. 183, 185, 236 S.E.2d 818, 819 (1977) (); Williams v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 409 S.C. 586, 594, 762 S.E.2d 705, 709 (2014) ; S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dawsey, 371 S.C. 353, 356, 638 S.E.2d 103, 104-05 (Ct. App. 2006) ( ; Coakley, 376 S.C. at 7, 656 S.E.2d at 19 ( ); Tollison v. Reaves, 277 S.C. 443, 446, 289 S.E.2d 163, 165 (1982) ( ).
2. As to whether the circuit court erred in finding GEICO's policy ambiguous due to the phrase "a vehicle you do not own" in the "Other Insurance" provision: S.C. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623, 550 S.E.2d 299, 302-03 (2001) ( ); Williams, 409 S.C. at 595, 762 S.E.2d at 710 ; id. (); Dawsey, 371 S.C. at 356, 638 S.E.2d at 105 (); S.C. Ins. Co. v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 327 S.C. 207, 211, 489 S.E.2d 200, 202 (1997) ().
3. As to whether the circuit court erred in concluding that GEICO was unable to disclaim coverage under the terms of the policy because it issued Scoggin a Declarations Page: S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 344 S.C. 525, 530, 544 S.E.2d 848, 850 (Ct. App. 2001) (); Williams, 409 S.C. at 598, 762 S.E.2d at 712 (); Ruppe v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 329 S.C. 402, 406, 496 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial