Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Howard

• Decision Date: 17 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. 0330,0330
• Citation: 324 S.E.2d 323,284 S.C. 17
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gene Lindsey HOWARD and Northland Insurance Company, Respondents. . Heard

Page 323

324 S.E.2d 323

284 S.C. 17

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gene Lindsey HOWARD and Northland Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 0330.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard April 17, 1984.

Decided Dec. 10, 1984.

F. Dean Rainey, Jr., of Rainey, Britton, Gibbes & Clarkson, Greenville, for appellant.

Eugene C. Covington, Jr., of Foster, Covington & Patrick, Greenville, and Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondents.

SHAW, Judge:

The appellant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company brought this action for a declaratory judgment of the amount of uninsured motorist protection it owes the respondent Gene Lindsey Howard. The trial court determined Howard could add or "stack" the uninsured motorist coverage provided by separate policies. We affirm.

Howard was seriously injured when one of his eight vehicles was hit by an unidentified motorist. Two of Howard's vehicles, including the truck involved in the wreck, were covered by a policy with respondent Northland Insurance Company providing uninsured motorist protection with minimum personal injury benefits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident. The three other vehicles were covered by separate Nationwide policies containing single limit uninsured motorist endorsements of $35,000. At the time of trial Howard had incurred medical expenses of $60,000. In a John Doe action against the uninsured motorist Howard recovered a $500,000 judgment. Gene Lindsey Howard v. John Doe, Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, C.A. No. 81-CP-23-662.

S.C.Code Ann. Section 56-9-820 (1976) requires that all automobile liability insurance policies be issued with the following minimum coverage: $15,000 per person per accident, $30,000 for two or more persons per accident, and $5,000 for property damage. Under Section 56-9-830 "no such policy ... shall be issued ... unless it contains ... uninsured motorist [protection] within [the same] limitations". Under Section 56-9-831 (1976 & Supp.1983) [third sentence] if "an insured ... is protected by uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage in excess of the basic limits", then stacking shall be proscribed. Thus no stacking of insurance policies will be allowed if the insured has protection in excess of the limits set forth in Section 56-9-820; however, as Nationwide conceded in its brief and at oral argument, stacking will be allowed if the insured is not protected in excess of the basic limits. Gambrell v. Travelers Ins. Companies, 280 S.C. 69, 310 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1983), Garris v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 280 S.C. 149, 311 S.E.2d 723, 727 (1984). Stated differently, there is no question stacking is allowed in South Carolina. The question is whether stacking is prohibited by statute in this situation.

Our scope of review on this appeal is limited to the correction of errors of law. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976).

Nationwide argues the basic limit of Section 56-9-820 is $15,000. The trial court found that a $35,000 single limit policy does not constitute coverage "in excess of the basic limit" as defined in Section 56-9-820 because it does not provide for more than $35,000 of total coverage. The South Carolina Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a single limit policy in the amount of $35,000 meets or exceeds the statutory limit. ¹

In Guthrie v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 279 F.Supp. 837 (D.S.C.1968) the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina held that a motorist with a $25,000 single limit endorsement was uninsured under the Virginia Uninsured Motorist Statute....