Factory Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of America v. Kennedy

Decision Date15 July 1971
Docket NumberNo. 19254,19254
CitationFactory Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of America v. Kennedy, 256 S.C. 376, 182 S.E.2d 727 (S.C. 1971)
PartiesFACTORY MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. Albert A. KENNEDY et al., Appellants.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Columbia, for appellants.

Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice.

The question for decision in this appeal is whether an insurer is relieved of liability by the nonprejudicial failure of an insured to give notice of the accident and forward suit papers, as required by the conditions of a 'voluntary' automobile liability insurance policy.

The insured, under an automobile liability policy issued by plaintiff-respondent, was involved in an accident in which Norman G. and Myrnai B. Barkoot allegedly sustained damages.The Barkoots were insured under a liability policy issued to them by Fireman's Fund American Insurance Companies, which provided them with uninsured motorist coverage.After actions were brought by the Barkoots against respondent's insured, respondent instituted this action for declaratory judgment against its insured, the Barkoots, and Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, of which the latter is appellant.The court was asked to adjudge that respondent owed no duty to its insured to either defend the action brought by the Barkoots or to pay any judgment recovered by them, because of the alleged failure of the insured to comply with policy conditions which required him to give respondent notice of the accident and forward to in the suit papers.

Answers were filed by all of the defendants, except respondent's insured.Under the pleadings, the issues raised were (1) whether respondent's insured failed to give notice and forward suit papers as required by the policy; and, if so, (2) whether respondent was prejudiced thereby.

Respondent contended that the policy provisions in question constituted conditions precedent to recovery and that, upon proof of noncompliance therewith, it was relieved of liability under its policy.The action was defended upon the ground that, in addition to the failure of the insured to give the required notices, the burden was upon respondent, the insurer, to show that it had been substantially prejudiced by such failure.

The Master, to whom the cause was referred, found that the insured had failed to comply with the notice provisions of the policy and that such neglect relieved respondent of liability.The Master further held that under the law in this State, it was unnecessary for respondent to show that it was prejudiced by the neglect of the insured and, therefore, did not decide whether prejudice in fact did exist.These findings were affirmed by the trial judge and judgment entered for respondent, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

The pertinent portions of the policy provisions, with which we are here concerned, are contained in the 'Conditions'section and are as follows:

'When an accident occurs written notice shall be given by or on behalf of the insured to the company or any of its authorized agents as soon as practicable.Such notice shall contain particulars sufficient to identify the insured and also reasonably obtainable information respecting the time, place and circumstances of the accident, the names and addresses of the injured and of available witnesses.

'If claim is made or suit is brought against the insured, the insured shall immediately forward to the company every demand, notice, summons or other process received by him or his representative.

'No action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the insured shall have fully complied with all the terms of this policy, nor until the amount of the insured's obligation to pay shall have been finally determined either by judgment against the insured after actual trial or by written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the company.'

In holding that the failure of an insured to give notice and forward suit papers, per se, relieved the insurer of liability, the lower court mainly relied, as does respondent in this appeal, upon the cases of Free v. United Life & Accident Ins. Co., 178 S.C. 317, 182 S.E. 754;Lee v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 180 S.C. 475, 186 S.E. 376;Boyle Road & Bridge Co. v. American...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
27 cases
  • Cooperative Fire Ins. Ass'n of Vermont v. White Caps, Inc.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 28 Marzo 1997
    ...66, 371 A.2d 193, 198 (1977); Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Becton, 475 A.2d 1032, 1035 (R.I.1984); Factory Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 256 S.C. 376, 182 S.E.2d 727, 729-30 (1971); Pulse v. Northwest Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 18 Wash.App. 59, 566 P.2d 577, 579 (1977); State Auto. Mut. Ins. ......
  • Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 1 Marzo 1988
    ... ... complaint impleading his comprehensive liability insurer, Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Group ... , 444-45, 217 A.2d 60 (1966); Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Williams, 152 Conn. 178, 186-87, 205 A.2d ... Becton, 475 A.2d 1032, 1035 (R.I.1984); Factory ... Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 256 ... ...
  • Lawler v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 29 Agosto 1990
    ...(Mo.Ct.App.1988); Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Becton, 475 A.2d 1032, 1035-36 (R.I.1984); Factory Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of America v. Kennedy, 256 S.C. 376, 182 S.E.2d 727, 728-30 (1971); Lee v. Lee, 732 S.W.2d 275, 276-77 (Tenn.1987); Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roman, 486 S.W.2d ......
  • Portrait Homes - S.C. v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 24 Abril 2024
    ...to which he would otherwise be entitled.’ " Neumayer, 427 S.C. at 272, 831 S.E.2d at 411 (quoting Factory Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kennedy, 256 S.C. 376, 381, 182 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1971)). "Rather than provide a Technical escape-hatch’ for the insurer to deny coverage, the notice-prejud......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • Step-down or Step-on?
    • United States
    • South Carolina Bar South Carolina Lawyer No. 33-4, January 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...[19] Parker, supra note 17, at 42. [20] Id. at 37. [21] Id. at 42. [22] Id. [23] See Factory Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kennedy, 256 S.C. 376, 380-81, 182 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1971). [24] S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-30(7) (2007). [25] Williams at 591, 762 S.E.2d at 708. [26] Id. [27] Id. [2......
  • § 3.5 Insured's Obligation to Give Notice of Claim and Cooperate
    • United States
    • Insurance Bad Faith: A Primer on the Law in South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter 3 Bad Faith Processing of Insurance Claim
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 427 S.C. 261, 266, 831 S.E.2d 406, 408 (2019) (citing Factory Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kennedy, 256 S.C. 376, 381, 182 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1971)).[43] Shiftlet v. Allstate Ins. Co., 451 F. Supp. 2d 763, 771-72 (D.S.C. 2006); Hodges v. State Farm Mut. Auto.......