Kraft v. Hartford Ins. Companies, 21959

• Decision Date: 19 July 1983
• Docket Number: No. 21959,21959
• Citation: 305 S.E.2d 243,279 S.C. 257
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: George KRAFT, Respondent, v. The HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANIES, Appellant.

Page 243

305 S.E.2d 243

279 S.C. 257

George KRAFT, Respondent, v. The HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANIES, Appellant.

No. 21959.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 19, 1983.

Barnwell, Whaley, Stevenson & Patterson, Charleston, for appellant.

Joye, Claypoole & Kefalos, Charleston Heights, for respondent.

GREGORY, Justice:

The Hartford Insurance Companies (Hartford) appeals from an order of the special trial judge granting respondent George Kraft's motion for summary judgment. The sole issue on appeal is whether automobile liability insurance may be "stacked" when the insured is driving a non-owned vehicle. We affirm.

Respondent was seriously injured when the motorcycle he was driving was struck by a vehicle driven by Thomas Geathers and owned by Richard Geathers, an insured of State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). Respondent settled with State Farm for the full amount of its coverage.

Thomas Geathers was the named insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by appellant which covered two vehicles, both with minimum coverage in the amount of $15,000/$30,000/$5,000. Respondent sought recovery from appellant in the amount of $30,000.00. Appellant denied recovery of any amount greater than $15,000, the liability coverage on one vehicle. Respondent then brought this declaratory judgment action to resolve the issue whether liability coverage on the vehicles could be "stacked" when the insured was driving a non-owned vehicle.

Cross motions for summary judgment were heard. Hartford appeals from the trial court's order granting respondent's motion.

Appellant concedes an insured who contracts for double coverage should receive double coverage, but contends its insured paid for a single coverage for non-owned vehicle liability coverage and is entitled to single coverage.

An insurer is not required by statute to offer insurance coverage for the operation of non-owned vehicles; thus, the parties may contract as they choose. See Willis v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, 253 S.C. 91, 169 S.E.2d 282 (1969).

The question arises whether Geathers' insurance contract provided liability coverage for the operation of non-owned vehicles on both vehicles covered under the policy.

The "Liability" portion of Geathers' policy, Section I, provides that the insurer agrees to pay on behalf of the insured all sums the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages which arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the owned automobile or any non-owned automobile. The "Conditions" portion of the policy provides in pertinent part:

4. Two or More Automobiles--Sections I, II, and IV: When two or more automobiles are insured hereunder, the terms of this policy shall apply separately to each....

An insurance policy is to be liberally construed in favor of the...