Gaskins v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CAS., No. 25654.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Citation354 S.C. 416,581 S.E.2d 169
Docket NumberNo. 25654.
Decision Date19 May 2003
PartiesRandy GASKINS and Linda Gaskins, Respondents, v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company and Timothy Brant, Petitioners.

354 S.C. 416
581 S.E.2d 169

Randy GASKINS and Linda Gaskins, Respondents,
v.
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company and Timothy Brant, Petitioners

No. 25654.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard March 18, 2003.

Decided May 19, 2003.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 2003.


354 S.C. 417
Robert J. Thomas, of Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, of Columbia, for Petitioners

Constance A. Anastopoulo, of the Anastopoulo Law Firm, of Charleston, for Respondents.

Thomas A. Pendarvis, of Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, of Columbia, and J. David Flowers, of Greenville, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association.

354 S.C. 418
Justice BURNETT

We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Gaskins v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 343 S.C. 666, 541 S.E.2d 269 (Ct.App.2000). We affirm the decision as modified.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Randy ("Randy") and Linda Gaskins (collectively "Gaskins") sued Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company ("Southern Farm") for fraudulently inducing them to sign a claim's release. Gaskins' complaint alleges Randy's father accidentally shot him while hunting. Randy claims the shooting resulted in severe injuries and accrued medical bills in excess of $36,000.

The complaint alleges Southern Farm insured Randy's father. Further, the Gaskins allege a Southern Farm agent informed Randy's father the policy limit was $9,000 although it was actually $100,000.

The Gaskins complain they relied on the insurers erroneous information when they accepted $9,000 in compensation for Randy's injuries in exchange for releasing Southern Farm from any additional claims. Accordingly, the Gaskins seek to recover in tort against Southern Farm for fraudulently inducing them to settle the claim.

The trial court dismissed the Gaskins' fraud claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, citing Hopkins v. Fidelity Insurance Company, 240 S.C. 230, 125 S.E.2d 468 (1962). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Hopkins was a rule of pleading supplanted by the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals found Hopkins did not bar the suit.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in finding Hopkins inapplicable?

ANALYSIS

The Court of Appeals ruled Hopkins inapplicable because it did not involve applicable substantive law. We disagree.

354 S.C. 419
In Hopkins a plaintiff sued an insurance company in tort for fraudulently inducing her to sign a release of all claims involving the death of her daughter. The trial court denied the defendant's demurrer

On appeal, this Court relied upon three grounds to reverse the trial court's denial of the insurance company's demurrer. Importantly for the present case, we found the trial court erred in denying...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Parrish v. Allison, No. 4322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 19 de dezembro de 2007
    ...Gaskins v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 343 S.C. 666, 671, 541 S.E.2d 269, 271 (Ct.App.2000), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 354 S.C. 416, 581 S.E.2d 169 (2003); see Rule 8(f), SCRCP (providing that all pleadings must be construed to do substantial justice to all A defamatory communic......
  • Funderburk v. Funderburk, 2018-001173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 8 de dezembro de 2021
    ...Gaskins v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 343 S.C. 666, 671, 541 S.E.2d 269, 271 (Ct. App. 2000), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 354 S.C. 416, 581 S.E.2d 169 (2003))). Additionally, the family court had previously ordered both the home and the firearms be appraised. The family court's c......
  • Smith v. Smith, No. 4638.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 9 de dezembro de 2009
    ...Gaskins v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 343 S.C. 666, 671, 541 S.E.2d 269, 271 (Ct. App.2000), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 354 S.C. 416, 581 S.E.2d 169 In McMaster v. Strickland, although the plaintiff captioned his action as one for "Breach of Contract," he failed to request monet......
  • Village Northridge Ass'n v. State Farm, No. B188718.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 17 de dezembro de 2007
    ...deprived by fraud of the full insurance protection for which it paid. 5. See also Gaskins v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. (2003) 354 S.C. 416, 419-420, 581 S.E.2d 169 [suit against insurer for fraudulently inducing settlement of claim against insured for personal injuries; "a majo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Parrish v. Allison, No. 4322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 19 de dezembro de 2007
    ...Gaskins v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 343 S.C. 666, 671, 541 S.E.2d 269, 271 (Ct.App.2000), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 354 S.C. 416, 581 S.E.2d 169 (2003); see Rule 8(f), SCRCP (providing that all pleadings must be construed to do substantial justice to all A defamatory communic......
  • Funderburk v. Funderburk, 2018-001173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 8 de dezembro de 2021
    ...Gaskins v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 343 S.C. 666, 671, 541 S.E.2d 269, 271 (Ct. App. 2000), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 354 S.C. 416, 581 S.E.2d 169 (2003))). Additionally, the family court had previously ordered both the home and the firearms be appraised. The family court's c......
  • Smith v. Smith, No. 4638.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 9 de dezembro de 2009
    ...Gaskins v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 343 S.C. 666, 671, 541 S.E.2d 269, 271 (Ct. App.2000), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 354 S.C. 416, 581 S.E.2d 169 In McMaster v. Strickland, although the plaintiff captioned his action as one for "Breach of Contract," he failed to request monet......
  • Village Northridge Ass'n v. State Farm, No. B188718.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 17 de dezembro de 2007
    ...deprived by fraud of the full insurance protection for which it paid. 5. See also Gaskins v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. (2003) 354 S.C. 416, 419-420, 581 S.E.2d 169 [suit against insurer for fraudulently inducing settlement of claim against insured for personal injuries; "a majo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT