Lawson v. Porter
| Decision Date | 15 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19208,19208 |
| Citation | 256 S.C. 65,180 S.E.2d 643 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jessie A. LAWSON, Respondent, v. Donald H. PORTER, Appellant. |
George F. Abernathy, of Odom, Nolen, Terry & Abernathy, Spartanburg, for appellant.
James C. Cothran, Jr., of Moore, Stoddard & Sanders, Spartanburg, for respondent.
Jessie A. Lawson, the plaintiff herein, instituted this action against Donald H. Porter, the defendant herein, to recover damages for bodily injuries sustained by him while he was riding as a passenger in a car which was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant and owned by another person.
Unigard Insurance Company had the liability insurance coverage on the vehicle being operated by the defendant but because the plaintiff anticipated the denial of liability coverage by Unigard, National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, plaintiff's insurance carrier, was served with the summons and complaint pursuant to Section 46--750.33 of the Code.
National Grange appeared and moved to set aside the service of the summons and complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had executed a 'Release and Trust Agreement', by which it was released from any liability under the uninsured motorist provision of its policy and subrogating it to the extent of the payment made thereunder to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the operator of the uninsured automobile. National Grange, pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 89, requested the plaintiff to admit that he had executed a 'Release and Trust Agreement', for a consideration of $40.00 of his claim for damages against National Grange under the uninsured motorist endorsement contained in his policy. In the alternative, National Grange moved to be made a party plaintiff to this action so that it could assert its subrogation claim against the defendant.
All of these motions were heard by The Honorable Charles M. Pace, Judge of the Spartanburg County Court, and such were decided adversely to National Grange. This appeal followed.
The applicable statute, Section 46--750.32 of the Code, requires that automobile liability insurance policies issued or delivered in this State contain an endorsement obligating the insurer to pay to the insured, within prescribed limits, such sum as he may be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. An uninsured motor vehicle is defined by Section 46--750.31 of the Code, as 'A motor vehicle as to which there is no * * * liability insurance * * *, or there is such insurance, but the insurance company * * * denies coverage thereunder.'
It is provided in Section 46--750.33 of the Code, that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. Doe
...Any contractual defenses may be asserted in the subsequent action between the insured and his insurance company. Lawson v. Porter, 256 S.C. 65, 180 S.E.2d 643 (1971); Doe v. Brown, 125 S.E.2d at 165; Lusk v. Doe, 338 S.E.2d at 379-80 n. 4; see Guthrie v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insuran......
-
Collins v. Auto–owners Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 4:09–696–TLW.
...is subject to the condition that the insured establish legal liability on the part of the uninsured motorist.” Lawson v. Porter, 256 S.C. 65, 180 S.E.2d 643, 644 (1971). Defendant indicates that the Plaintiff has never obtained a judgment against the uninsured motorist Frasier as the jury r......
-
Connelly v. The Main St. Am. Grp.
... ... insurance company on its endorsement ... " (emphasis ... added)); see also Lawson v. Porter , 256 S.C. 65, ... 68-69, 180 S.E.2d 643, 644 (1971) (collecting cases outlining ... the same requirement); cf. Williams v ... ...
-
LeFevre v. Westberry
...to recovery under the policy. Continental Ins. Co. v. Echols, 145 Ga.App. 112, 113, 243 S.E.2d 88, 89-90 (1978); Lawson v. Porter, 256 S.C. 65, 68, 180 S.E.2d 643, 644 (1971); Glover v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 225 Tenn. 306, 312-13, 468 S.W.2d 727, 730 (1971); Rodgers v. Danko, 204......