Major v. National Indem. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 20305,20305 |
| Citation | 267 S.C. 517,229 S.E.2d 849 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | David MAJOR, guardian ad litem for Mabel Major, Respondent, v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant. |
John D. Whisenhunt, Florence, for appellant.
Dan M. McEachin, Jr., Florence, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a denial of the demurrer interposed by the appellant, National Indemnity Company, on the basis of a defect or non-joinder of necessary parties. The only issue presented on this appeal is the propriety of this direct action solely against National Indemnity.
On March 2, 1973, a truck owned and operated by Evans and McDonald Trucking Company collided with a school bus. As a result of this collision several suits were instituted against National Indemnity Company, the liability insurer of the trucking company.
It is stipulated that at the time of the accident National Indemnity had a policy of automobile liability insurance in full force and effect upon the truck operated by Evans and McDonald Trucking. The amended complaint alleges that such insurance was issued pursuant to the statutory laws of this State. It is axiomatic that for the purposes of a demurrer the allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true.
This Court has held that insurers may be joined in actions by third parties based on negligence where the liability insurance is compulsory. See Section 10--702, 1962 Code of Laws; Bartell v. Willis Construction Company,259 S.C. 20, 190 S.E.2d 461 (1972); Brown v. Quinn, 220 S.C. 426, 68 S.E.2d 326 (1951). This issue of first impression involves not joinder but an independent action solely against the insurer. Hence, the cases cited by the trial judge in his order overruling the demurrer are inapposite here. 1
The respondent's argument advancing the viability of suing the insurer alone is founded on Sections 58--1481 and 58--1482, 1962 Code of Laws. 2 Essentially, these statutes require the procurement of liability insurance or surety bonds before the issuance of certificates or the commercial transportation of goods on the roads of this State. Ostensibly, neither statute expressly authorizes direct actions against any insurer. In fact, the sole and manifest purpose of the legislation is to insure financial responsibility of motor vehicle carriers. See Ott v. American Fidelity and Casualty Co., 161 S.C. 314, 159 S.E. 635 (1931).
Section 10--702, 1962 Code of Laws, permits the joinder of a compulsory liability insurer in an action founded upon tort law and provides that the liability shall be joint and concurrent. 3 The respondent asserts that because joinder is permissive, the statute does not preclude independent action against the insured.
At common law, no right to maintain suit directly against the insurer existed absent privity of contract between the claimant and the insured. See Couch on Insurance (2d), Section 45:764. Because direct actions against the insurer contravenes common law, such a right must be expressly sanctioned by the legislature and not merely inferentially deduced. Crowder v. Carroll, 251 S.C. 192, 161 S.E.2d 235 (1968).
Legislation in derogation of common law must be strictly construed under settled principles enunciated by this Court. See Southern Railway Co. v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 237 S.C. 75, 115 S.E.2d 685 (1960), and cases cited therein. We find no right, either statutory or under the common law, to maintain an action solely against the insurer.
The appellant also asserts that it should not be subject to suit either jointly or alone for the alleged negligence of the insured when such negligence has not been established. We have heretofore disposed of the propriety of independent action against the insurer alone. Joint liability of the appellant is not presently a justiciable controversy between the parties.
The judgment is accordingly reversed and the demurrer sustained.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.C. Dept. of Health v. Commerce & Indus. Ins.
...contract between the claimant and the insurer; or (2) an express statutory grant of the right to restitution. Major v. Nat'l Indem. Co., 267 S.C. 517, 229 S.E.2d 849, 850 (1976); see also Swinton v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 283 S.C. 11, 320 S.E.2d 495, 496 (1984) (rejecting direct action against ......
-
Elmore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...of action for third-party common law bad faith, we would be the only jurisdiction so to do. See e.g., Major v. National Indem. Co., 267 S.C. 517, 520, 229 S.E.2d 849, 850 (1976) ("At common law, no right to maintain suit directly against the insurer existed absent privity of contract betwee......
-
Ross Dev. Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...& Envtl. Control, C.A. No. 2:00–1582–CWH, Entry 57 ¶¶ 72–76. The Fourth Circuit ruled however, citing Major v. National Indemnity Co., 267 S.C. 517, 229 S.E.2d 849, 850 (1976) that the claims against the insurers should be dismissed. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that no direct action for res......
-
Trancik v. USAA INS. CO
...injured person has no right of action at law against the insurer." 44 Am.Jur.2d Insurance § 1445 (1982); see Major v. Nat'l Indem. Co., 267 S.C. 517, 520, 229 S.E.2d 849, 850 (1976) (holding "[a]t common law, no right to maintain suit directly against the insurer existed absent privity of c......