Hogan v. Home Ins. Co., 19572

Citation260 S.C. 157,194 S.E.2d 890
Decision Date26 February 1973
Docket NumberNo. 19572,19572
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesMarvin E. HOGAN, Administrator of the Estate of Roger E. Hogan, Respondent, v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for appellant.

Chapman & Lowery, Anderson, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice.

We held in Willis v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y., 253 S.C. 91, 169 S.E.2d 282, that a provision in an automobile liability policy excluding liability coverage to an insured while driving an automobile which is not described in the policy, but which is owned by the named insured or a member of the same household, was a valid policy provision and did not conflict with the requirements of the South Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (Sections 46--750.31(2) and 46--750.32, Cumulative Supplement [260 S.C. 159] to 1962 Code of Laws). Our decision was based upon the provisions of the Act relating to Liability insurance, which required the prescribed coverage Only as to liability arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of the vehicles described in the policy.

The question now presented in this case is whether an exclusionary clause, such as was involved in Willis, may be made applicable to the uninsured motorist provisions of an automobile liability insurance policy, so as to legally exclude uninsured motorist coverage to an insured while occupying an uninsured automobile owned by the named insured or a member of the same household.

Appellant, Home Insurance Company, issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to Lila S. Hogan, as the named insured, with an uninsured motorist endorsement. The vehicle described in the policy was a 1962 Ford automobile. Roger E Hogan, a son, and Steve Meroney, a nephew, of Lila S. Hogan, both 18 years of age, resided in the household with Mrs. Hogan, the named insured.

On August 1, 1967 Roger E. Hogan was killed in a single car accident, while riding as a passenger in an uninsured 1967 Ford automobile, the title to which was in the name of Lila S. Hogan but actually owned by Steve Meroney who had made all of the purchase payments and exercised exclusive control over the vehicle.

As the result of an action for the wrongful death of Roger E. Hogan, judgment in the amount of $9,524.00 was entered against the estate of Steve Meroney who was also killed in the accident. Thereafter, respondent instituted this action to recover the judgment from appellant under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy issued to Lila S. Hogan. Respondent asserted liability against appellant upon the ground that appellant's policy issued to Lila S. Hogan provided uninsured motorist coverage to respondent as a resident member of the named insured's household. Appellant denied liability, relying upon the following exclusionary clause in the uninsured motorist endorsement of the policy:

This endorsement does not apply:

(b) to bodily injury to an uninsured while occupying an automobile (other than an insured automobile) owned by the named insured or any relative resident in the same household.

It is conceded that, but for the quoted provision, the policy in question afforded uninsured motorist coverage to respondent.

The lower court entered judgment against appellant, holding that the foregoing exclusionary clause was in conflict with the statutory provisions requiring the uninsured motorist endorsement and, therefore, ineffective to deprive respondent of uninsured motorist coverage. This appeal is from the judgment so entered.

The question then to be decided is whether the quoted clause is in conflict with the statutory provisions governing uninsured motorist coverage. If the provision excluding coverage is in conflict with the requirements of the statute, of course, the statute controls the rights of the parties.

Every automobile liability insurance policy issued in this State must contain an uninsured motorist endorsement providing uninsured motorist coverage to the insured in addition to the liability insurance contract. The requirement and the extent of the obligation is set forth in Section 46--750.33 of the Code Supplement as follows:

'No such policy or contract shall be issued or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Peagler v. Usaa Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 20, 2006
    ...of a motor vehicle, and cases arising under those statutes which establish a method of resolving the issue. Cf. Hogan v. Home Ins. Co., 260 S.C. 157, 194 S.E.2d 890 (1973) (statute controls when provision in automobile policy excluding coverage conflicts with Turning to the statute-based qu......
  • Bradley v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1979
    ...& Surety Co., 335 F.Supp. 1296 (N.D.Ind., 1971); Elledge v. Warren, 263 So.2d 912 (La.App., 1972).Similarly, see Hogan v. Home Ins. Co., 260 S.C. 157, 194 S.E.2d 890 (1973); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Hurst, 2 Cal.App.3d 1067, 83 Cal.Rptr. 156 (1969); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Meeks, 207 Va.......
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hampton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 31, 1991
    ...256 Ga. 575, 351 S.E.2d 205, 206 (1987); Cardin v. Royal Ins. Co., 394 Mass. 450, 476 N.E.2d 200, 204 (1985); Hogan v. Home Ins. Co., 260 S.C. 157, 194 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1973); Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229, 234 (Fla.1971). The MVFRL contains similar language. See 7......
  • Mitchell v. Broudnax
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1999
    ...Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 87 N.M. 327, 533 P.2d 100 (1975); Cothren v. Emcasco Ins. Co., 555 P.2d 1037 (Okla. 1976); Hogan v. Home Ins. Co., 260 S.C. 157, 194 S.E.2d 890 (1973); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Meeks, 207 Va. 897, 153 S.E.2d 222 (1967) (court looked to the definitions of "insured" and concl......
  • 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