McCracken v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 22206
| Decision Date | 03 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22206,22206 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles McCRACKEN and Carol McCracken, Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
Carol McCracken, pro se.
Joseph R. Young, Charleston, and Clayton H. Farnham, Atlanta, for defendant.
This case is pending for determination in the United States District Court. Pursuant to Rule 46 of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, we agreed to rule upon a question certified by that Court to us as follows:
Under South Carolina law, can an innocent spouse recover his or her share under an insurance policy issued jointly to husband and wife, which insured property owned by them as joint tenants, where the loss by fire resulted from the intentional burning of the property by the other spouse?
Plaintiffs-appellants, Charles and Carol McCracken, sued Government Employees Insurance Company, defendant-respondent, to recover on insurance policies for losses incurred from the burning of their residence. At trial, the jury found that the husband, Mr. McCracken, intentionally burned the property; that the wife, Mrs. McCracken, was not involved in the arson; and further that the husband had obtained the policy by false material representations. Upon appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court affirmed the jury's findings, but remanded the case to the District Court to determine if the innocent wife may recover her share of the insurance proceeds. Since the question is novel to South Carolina law which is controlling, we agreed to accept the question.
While the question certified is one of first impression in South Carolina, several Courts in other jurisdictions have confronted the issue. See, Annotation, 11 A.L.R. 4th 1228 (1982). Many of the cases have turned on whether the interests of the co-insureds are considered joint or severable.
Generally speaking, where the interests in the property are considered nonseverable, the courts have held that the innocent party may not recover. See Short v. Oklahoma Farmers Union Insurance, 619 P.2d 588 (Okla.1980); Morgan v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 91 Mich.App. 48, 282 N.W.2d 829 (1979). Where the interests in the property are regarded as divisible or severable, the innocent co-insured is not prevented from recovering on the policy, notwithstanding that the other insured intentionally burned the covered property. See Hosey v. Seibels Bruce Group, South Carolina Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 751 (Ala.1978); Hoyt v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co., 92 N.H. 242, 29 A.2d 121 (1942).
A second group of states examines whether the obligations of the co-insured as indicated in the insurance contract are joint or severable. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Molloy, 291 Md. 139, 433 A.2d 1135 (1981). Ryan v. MFA Insurance Co., 610 S.W.2d 428 (Tenn.App.1980).
A final group allows recovery without regard to whether the underlying property or insurance contract interest was joint or divisible, and instead examines whether the liability for the fraudulent act can be considered separate or joint. See Howell v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 130 N.J.Supp. 350, 327 A.2d 240 (1974); Winter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 96 Misc.2d 497, 409 N.Y.S.2d 85 (1978). In virtually all cases examined under this rationale, recovery for the innocent spouse or co-insured is allowed.
Inasmuch as there is a decided split of authority, we feel at liberty, in the absence of contractual provisions and statutes, to choose that rule which appeals to our sense of reason and fairness. That rule is enunciated in the following two cases.
In Hildebrand v. Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 386 A.2d 329 (Me.1978), the Supreme Court of Maine construed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rena, Inc. v. Brien
...for innocent spouse, innocent wife can recover although she continued to live with arsonist husband); McCracken v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 284 S.C. 66, 325 S.E.2d 62 (1985) (in the absence of any statute or specific policy language denying coverage for the arson of co-insured, innoce......
-
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Desert State Life Mgmt.
...time recognized only the innocent insured doctrine in the context of arson. See 636 F. App'x at 874 (citing McCracken v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 284 S.C. 66, 325 S.E.2d 62, 64 (1985) ). The Fourth Circuit concluded that rescinding a South Carolina professional liability insurance policy for i......
-
Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 86SC13
...274 S.E.2d 170 (1981); Maravich v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co., 350 Pa.Super. 392, 504 A.2d 896 (1986); McCracken v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 284 S.C. 66, 325 S.E.2d 62 (1985).8 Although the value of the property was disputed, Gayle S. Jernigan's one-half share of the highest estimate......
-
Error v. Western Home Ins. Co.
...620 P.2d 1282 (1980); Winter v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 96 Misc.2d 497, 409 N.Y.S.2d 85 (Sup.Ct.1978); McCracken v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 284 S.C. 66, 325 S.E.2d 62 (1985); Kulubis, 706 S.W.2d 953; Hedtcke v. Sentry Ins. Co., 109 Wis.2d 461, 326 N.W.2d 727 (1982); cf. Shaw v. Je......
-
Catch Me If You Can: Fake Doctors Application Voids Coverage For Himself But Not For Innocent Co-Insureds
...by one co-insured does not bar the innocent co-insureds from recovering under the policy. McCracken v. Government Employees, Ins. Co., 325 S.E.2d 62 (S.C. Policyholders should be mindful of the ruling in Agape to review their professional liability policies, as well as directors' & offi......