Miles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 31 May 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 17790,17790 |
Citation | 238 S.C. 374,120 S.E.2d 217 |
Parties | Beatrice B. MILES, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
John A. Martin, George F. Coleman, Winnsboro, for appellant.
Nelson, Mullins & Grier, Columbia, T. K. McDonald, Winnsboro, for respondent.
Plaintiff, insured under defendant's policy against liability for bodily injury caused by the operation of her automobile, brought this action in tort alleging negligence and bad faith on defendant's part in failing to defend, settle, or save her harmless from the claim of her daughter-in-law, a passenger in said automobile, who had been injured while plaintiff was operating it. She appeals, charging that the trial Judge erred: (1) in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant; and (2) in excluding certain proffered testimony.
The policy, limiting the amount of coverage to $5,000 for injury to or death of one person and to $10,000 for injury to or death of more than one person, excluded from coverage 'bodily injury to the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured.'
The accident occurred on December 3, 1958. Two days later the insured signed and delivered to the insurer's agent, Mr. Arnette, a report of it on the company's 'Automobile Claim Report' form. That report listed as the occupants of the car, other than the insured, Laverne Miles (the insured's daughter-in-law), Ricky and Kenneth Miles (Laverne's children), and Brenda, Cathy and Sandra Miles (children of the insured). It described the accident as having happened about 9:40 p. m. on Pine Needle Road in Columbia, S. C., when the insured drove into a sharp curve unexpectedly at a speed of about forty miles per hour and lost control of the car, which struck tree and a utility pole on the right side of the road. In the 'Personal Injury Report Space' it stated the name and address of the policyholder as 'Mrs. Beatrice B. Miles, Old Camden Road, Ridgeway, S. C.', and it listed the names and addresses of the persons injured, other than the insured as follows: Sandra Miles, age 15, Old Camden Road, Ridgeway, S. C.; Cathy Miles, age 10, Old Camden Road, Ridgeway, S. C.; Laverne Miles, age 23, Old Camden Road, Ridgeway, S. C. It gave the relation of the injured to the insured as 'daughters'; and it answered 'Yes' the question 'Does injured reside in same household as insured?'
Laverne Miles employed an attorney of the bar of Winnsboro in Fairfield County, and on April 17 he wrote to Mr. Arnette, the insurer's agent at Winnsboro, advising of his representation of her. On April 20, the insurer's claims representative called at the home of Mrs. Beatrice B. Miles and obtained from her the following written statement, which she signed:
'The above statement is true according to my knowledge.'
By letter dated April 2,, the insurer's claims representative acknowledged receipt of notice of Laverne's representation by counsel and advised that on his next trip to Winnsboro he would drop by her attorney's office and discuss the claim with him; but in fact he did not call upon Laverne's attorney until some time after August 15, when he called for the purpose of denying coverage.
In September, 1959, Laverne brought suit against Beatrice, asking damages in the amount of $60,000. On October 5, copies of the summons and complaint having been received by the company, its claim superintendent wrote to Beatrice adivising that the company had placed the matter in the hands of its attorneys in Columbia, S. C., with instructions to look after the defense, not waiving, but specifically reserving the right to deny coverage, and suggesting that because of that fact and the further fact that the amount demanded was in excess of the protection afforded by the policy, she might procure counsel to represent her personally, at her own expense, in addition to counsel employed by the insurance company. On October 14, 1959, the company's claim superintendent wrote to Beatrice stating the the company had completed its investigation, which had established, among other things, that Laverne, the insured's daughter-in-law, was at the time of the accident a member of the family of the insured residing in the same household, and that her injury was therefore not covered by the policy and that therefore the company would not defend the action brought by Laverne and would not pay any judgment obtained against Beatrice therein; and that she (Beatrice) should take whatever steps she might deem appropriate to defend herself in said action. Copy of this letter was sent to Laverne's attorney, Honorable John A. Martin. On October 20, 1959, he wrote to Beatrice, advising of his receipt of said copy; offering, on behalf of Laverne, to settle her claim for $5,000, subject to acceptance of the offer on or before October 28; and advising that a copy of his letter was being sent to the company's claim superintendent and to the company's attorneys, Messrs. Nelson, Mullins & Grier, who had previously contacted Mr. Martin with regard to extension of time. On October 27, Massers. Nelson, Mullins & Grier wrote to Beatrice, returning to her the copy of summons and complaint, and suggesting that she employ her own counsel for defense of the action and arrange at once with Mr. Martin for a reasonable time in which to make her appearance in the case. By letter of the same date to Mr. Martin, Messrs. Nelson, Mullins & Grier advised that they had returned the suit papers to Beatrice and requested that he give her a reasonable time in which to procure representation and file an answer.
Beatrice was given additional time to procure counsel and defend, but she did not do so; and judgment was entered against her, by default, on April 4, 1960, in the amount of $12,500.
Laverne then sued State Farm Mutual for $5,000 on the policy, as a third party beneficiary thereunder. State Farm, defending, contended that she was within the exclusion clause before mentioned; but the jury resolved that issue against it and rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000, which State Farm paid.
Beatrice then brought the present action in tort against State Farm, alleging negligence and bad faith on its part in not properly investigating the matter of Laverne's residence and in failing to settle her claim. Damages were sought in the amount of $7,500, being the excess of Laverne's judgment over the amount of the coverage, $5,000, which State Farm had paid as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robertsen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...to the insured for the amount of the judgment against the insured in excess of the policy limit." Miles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 238 S.C. 374, 120 S.E.2d 217, 220 (1961). The South Carolina Supreme Court, like courts of many other states, has found that a liability ins......
-
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Arnold
...of such breach." Fuller v. Eastern Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (1962) 240 S.C. 75, 89-90, 124 S.E.2d 602, 610; Miles v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1961) 238 S.C. 374, 381, 120 S.E.2d 217; Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. Atlantic Bldg. Corp. (C.C.A.S.C.1952) 199 F.2d 60, 61; Annotation, 49 A.L.......
-
Trotter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Id. Of course, the rule does not apply if the personal injury claim is not covered by the policy. See Miles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 238 S.C. 374, 120 S.E.2d 217 (1961); Stroup Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 268 S.C. 203, 232 S.E.2d 885 (1977) (insurance c......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Security Forces, Inc.
...of insurance. See Tyger River Pine Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 170 S.C. 286, 170 S.E. 346 (1933); Miles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 238 S.C. 374, 120 S.E.2d 217 (1961); Nichols v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 279 S.C. 336, 306 S.E.2d 616 (1983). See also ......