Gambrell v. Travelers Ins. Companies, 22017

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: NESS; LEWIS
• Citation: 310 S.E.2d 814,280 S.C. 69
• Parties: Linda G. GAMBRELL, Appellant, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANIES, Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. 22017,22017
• Decision Date: 20 December 1983

Page 814

310 S.E.2d 814 280 S.C. 69 Linda G. GAMBRELL, Appellant,
v.
The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANIES, Respondent. No. 22017. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Dec. 20, 1983.

Page 815

[280 S.C. 70] Stephen K. Haigler of Otter, Sullivan, Haigler & Hermeston, Anderson, for appellant.

Thomas H. Coker, Jr., William M. Grant, Jr., and Edwin B. Parkinson, Jr. of Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for respondent.

NESS, Justice:

This is an underinsured motorist case with the following questions having been certified to this Court by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of Practice of the S.C. Supreme Court.

(1) Under S.C.Code Ann. § 56-9-831 (Supp.1982) may a motorist recover under her underinsured motorist coverage when her damages exceed the at fault motorist's liability coverage, even though the at fault motorist's liability coverage is of a greater amount than the underinsured coverage?

(2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, may the policyholder stack the underinsured motorist coverage provided to her by more than one vehicle?

We hold S.C.Code Ann. § 56-9-831 (Supp.1982) allows appellant to recover those damages exceeding the at fault motorist's liability coverage to the extent of her underinsured motorist coverage.

Appellant, Linda G. Gambrell, was seriously injured on September 12, 1980 in a head-on collision with a vehicle operated by respondent's insured. For the purposes of this action, both parties have agreed that appellant has suffered damages in excess of respondent's insured's $50,000 liability coverage, and that she has purchased underinsured

Page 816

motorist coverage within the statutory limits.

S.C.Code Ann. § 56-9-831 (Supp.1982) provides in pertinent part that:

[280 S.C. 71] "[Automobile insurance] carriers shall also offer, at the option of the insured, underinsured motorist coverage up to the limits of the insured's liability coverage [here 25-50-25]--to provide coverage in the event that damages are sustained in excess of the liability limits carried by an at fault insured or underinsured motorist." (Emphasis added).

When interpreting a statute, "the legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used, which must be construed in the light of the intended purpose of the [s]tatutes. One of the primary rules in a construction of a statute is that the words used therein should be taken in the ordinary and popular significance, unless there is something in the statute requiring a different interpretation." Laird v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 243 S.C. 388, 394, 134 S.E.2d 206 (1964); Merchants Mutual Insurance Company v. South Carolina Second Injury Fund, 277 S.C. 604, 291 S.E.2d 667 (1982).

Insurance policies are subject to general rules of contract construction. Sloan Construction Company, Inc. v. Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, 269 S.C. 183, 236 S.E.2d 818, 819 (1977). We must enforce, not write, contracts of insurance and we must give policy language its plain, ordinary and popular meaning. We should not torture the meaning of policy language in order to extend or defeat coverage that was never intended by the parties. Torrington Company v. The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, et al., 264 S.C. 636, 216 S.E.2d 547 (1975).

With these rules in mind, we conclude the purpose of S.C.Code Ann. § 56-9-831 (1982 Supp.) is to provide...