Hopkins v. Fidelity Ins. Co., No. 17910

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtLEGGE; TAYLOR
PartiesWillie Mae Lyles HOPKINS, Respondent, v. FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Decision Date07 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. 17910

Page 468

125 S.E.2d 468
240 S.C. 230
Willie Mae Lyles HOPKINS, Respondent,
v.
FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
No. 17910.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 7, 1962.

Page 469

[240 S.C. 231] Cooper & Gary, Columbia, Murchison, West & Marshall, Camden, for appellant.

[240 S.C. 232] J. Clator Arrants, Raeford D. Phillips, Camden, for respondent.

LEGGE, Acting Justice.

Action is for damages for fraud and deceit. From a circuit court order overruling its demurrer to the complaint and denying, in part, its motion to strike certain allegations, defendant appeals.

The complaint alleged, in substance: that the plaintiff, twenty-six years old, husbandless, illiterate, and dependent for support on the kindness of relations and her own meager income as a part-time farm laborer, was on April 7, 1961, living as a tenant on the farm of one B. L. McCaskill with her mother, an invalid uncle, a minor brother, and her two children,--a son aged five and a daughter aged two and a half years; that on the afternoon of said day plaintiff's said daughter 'was crushed under the wheels of a heavy truck owned by B. L. McCaskill', and died five [240 S.C. 233] days later; that thereafter one Paul Semple, as agent and adjuster of the defendant insurance company, persuaded plaintiff's mother to bring plaintiff to his office, where, taking advantage of her state of shock and grief, he maliciously told her that the defendant owed her nothing but would pay her two thousand ($2,000.00) dollars for the death of her child, which sum was 'a plenty', and that unless she would take it and sign a release 'they would pick up plaintiff's minor brother and put him in bad trouble'; that the representations so made by Semple were known by him to be false and were designed, for the benefit of the defendant insurance company, to defraud her of several thousands of dollars to which she was entitled for the death of her child; and that the plaintiff, believing said representations to be true, and relying upon them, signed the release as requested by him and thereby forfeited and lost 'her legal rights to a fair and just monetary value for the death' of her child; to her damage, actual and punitive, three hundred thousand ($300,000.00) dollars.

The demurrer charged, inter alia, that the complaint showed upon its face that the plaintiff had suffered no damage. We think that it should have been sustained upon that ground.

Although the action was laid in fraud and deceit, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Mutual Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McKenzie, No. 21228
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 13, 1980
    ...a remainderman. In Pilkington v. McBain, S.C., 262 S.E.2d 916 (1980), we distinguished the case of Hopkins v. Fidelity Insurance Company, 240 S.C. 230, 125 S.E.2d 468 (1962) in holding a demurrer to an action for fraud should have been overruled because the element of damage was fairly gath......
  • Gaskins v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CAS., No. 25654.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 19, 2003
    ...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 Civi......
  • Hartsel v. Selective Insurance Co. of South Carolina, 2011-UP-226
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 18, 2011
    ...to recover in those actions belongs exclusively to the personal representative, not to Norman and Mary. See Hopkins v. Fidelity Ins. Co., 240 S.C. 230, 233, 125 S.E.2d 468, 469 (1962) (holding for wrongful death or survival, a parent's "entitlement to compensation was not in her own right, ......
  • Hartsel v. Selective Ins. Co. of South Carolina, Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-226
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 18, 2011
    ...to recover in those actions belongs exclusively to the personal representative, not to Norman and Mary. See Hopkins v. Fidelity Ins. Co., 240 S.C. 230, 233, 125 S.E.2d 468, 469 (1962) (holding for wrongful death or survival, a parent's "entitlement to compensation was not in her own right, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Mutual Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McKenzie, No. 21228
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 13, 1980
    ...a remainderman. In Pilkington v. McBain, S.C., 262 S.E.2d 916 (1980), we distinguished the case of Hopkins v. Fidelity Insurance Company, 240 S.C. 230, 125 S.E.2d 468 (1962) in holding a demurrer to an action for fraud should have been overruled because the element of damage was fairly gath......
  • Gaskins v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CAS., No. 25654.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 19, 2003
    ...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 Civi......
  • Hartsel v. Selective Insurance Co. of South Carolina, 2011-UP-226
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 18, 2011
    ...to recover in those actions belongs exclusively to the personal representative, not to Norman and Mary. See Hopkins v. Fidelity Ins. Co., 240 S.C. 230, 233, 125 S.E.2d 468, 469 (1962) (holding for wrongful death or survival, a parent's "entitlement to compensation was not in her own right, ......
  • Hartsel v. Selective Ins. Co. of South Carolina, Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-226
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 18, 2011
    ...to recover in those actions belongs exclusively to the personal representative, not to Norman and Mary. See Hopkins v. Fidelity Ins. Co., 240 S.C. 230, 233, 125 S.E.2d 468, 469 (1962) (holding for wrongful death or survival, a parent's "entitlement to compensation was not in her own right, ......
  • 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