Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simmonds
| Decision Date | 10 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 23902,23902 |
| Citation | 434 S.E.2d 277,315 S.C. 404 |
| Parties | NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Stuart M. SIMMONDS, Robert Clay Simmonds, Jennifer Blankenship, Charles Williamson, Diana Williamson, Wendi Dake, Maurice Dake, Jane Dake, Teddy W. Roop, Patsy Roop, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina, Inc., Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, and Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants, of whom Stuart Simmonds, Robert Clay Simmonds, and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company are Respondents. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Robert C. Brown and Donna M. Seegars, Brown and Woods, Columbia, for appellant.
Michael M. Nunn, of Coleman, Aiken & Chase, Florence, for respondent Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
G. Conrad Derrick and Gena Phillips Ervin, Bridges, Orr, McEachin, Derrick & Ervin, and James T. McBratney, Jr., Rogers, McBratney & Josey, Florence, for respondents Stuart M. Simmonds and Robert Clay Simmonds.
The issue in this case is whether an insurer which tenders the policy limits must defend an action against its insured.
We hold that it must.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide) issued a $100,000 automobile Nationwide brought this interpleader action seeking to deposit the $100,000 policy limits with the Court for distribution to the various injured parties. Additionally, Nationwide sought a declaration that its obligation to defend Simmonds terminated upon tender of the policy limits. Circuit Court ruled that the tender did not relieve Nationwide of its duty to defend Simmonds.
liability policy to Stuart Simmonds (Simmonds). Simmonds' son, Robert Clay Simmonds, a covered insured, was in an automobile accident in which passengers of both vehicles sustained serious bodily injuries
Under the heading, "PROPERTY DAMAGE AND BODILY INJURY LIABILITY COVERAGE," the policy provides:
... in connection with any covered liability loss: (a) we will defend at our expense, with attorneys of our choice, any suit against the insured when jurisdiction of the court has been obtained without reference to our obligations in this policy. We may investigate, negotiate, and settle any claim or suit as we think appropriate. (Emphasis supplied).
Notwithstanding the above language, the policy further states "after the liability limits of this policy have been exhausted by payment, we will not be obligated to defend any suit or pay any claim or judgment." Nationwide contends this provision relieves it of the duty to defend Simmonds. We disagree. Simmonds contends that the provision, at best, constitutes an ambiguity. We agree.
It is well settled that "ambiguous or conflicting terms in a contract of insurance shall be construed most strongly against the insurer and favorable toward the insured." Turkett v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 279 S.C. 309, 313, 306 S.E.2d 602, 604 (1983). The rule applies where the language "is capable of two reasonable interpretations." Edens v. S.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 279 S.C. 377, 379, 308 S.E.2d 670, 671 (1983), appeal after remand, 288 S.C. 435, 343 S.E.2d 49 (Ct.App.1986).
Here, the provision relied upon by Nationwide conflicts directly with the provision requiring it to defend "without reference to our obligations in this policy." This conflict must be resolved in favor of the Insured.
Moreover, this Court has previously held that "an insurer's duty to defend is separate and distinct from its obligation to pay a judgment rendered against an insured." S.C. Med. Malpractice Liab. Ins. v. Ferry, 291 S.C. 460, 463, 354 S.E.2d 378, 380 (1987). As noted by the Fourth Circuit Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobb v. Benjamin
...236 S.E.2d 818 (1977). A tender of policy limits does not relieve an insurer's duty to defend its insured. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simmonds, 315 S.C. 404, 434 S.E.2d 277 (1993). The 1989 amendment to § 38-77-160 states the UIM carrier has the "right to appear and defend in the name of t......
-
Town of Duncan v. State Budget and Control Bd., Div. of Ins. Services
...of the First Amendment" is ambiguous in this context and should be construed in favor of coverage. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simmonds, 315 S.C. 404, 434 S.E.2d 277 (1993) (rule that ambiguous terms in policy should be construed against insurer applies when language used is capable of ......
-
Harriman v. Associated Indus. Ins. Co.
...Court held that an insurer is not absolved of its duty to defend by tendering payment in accordance with its policy limits. 315 S.C. 404, 434 S.E.2d 277, 278 (1993). In other words, an insurer's duty to defend in South Carolina is now absolute once it attaches. Accordingly, South Carolina l......
-
First Union Nat. Bank of South Carolina v. FCVS Communications, 2498
...that "[n]o further relief against [the holder is being] sought or necessary." ) (emphasis added); cf. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Simmonds, 315 S.C. 404, 434 S.E.2d 277 (1993) (in an interpleader action, the insurance company's tender of the policy limits did not relieve the company of its ......