Noisette v. Ismail, No. 23373

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFINNEY; GREGORY
Citation304 S.C. 56,403 S.E.2d 122
PartiesLurline NOISETTE, Respondent, v. Bassem ISMAIL, B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto Refurbishing, Penn National Insurance Company, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants, of whom Penn National Insurance Company is, Petitioner, and B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto Refurbishing is, Respondent. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 23373
Decision Date04 October 1990

Page 122

403 S.E.2d 122
304 S.C. 56
Lurline NOISETTE, Respondent,
v.
Bassem ISMAIL, B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto Refurbishing, Penn
National Insurance Company, Aetna Casualty and
Surety Company and Allstate Insurance
Company, Defendants,
of whom Penn National Insurance Company is, Petitioner,
and B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto Refurbishing is, Respondent.
No. 23373.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Oct. 4, 1990.
Decided April 1, 1991.
Rehearing Denied May 1, 1991.

Page 123

Stephen E. Darling and Bert G. Utsey, III, Sinkler & Boyd, P.A., Charleston, for petitioner.

Peggy Chandler, Belk, Cobb & Chandler, Charleston, for respondent B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto Refurbishing.

Arnold S. Goodstein and Mary A. Marwick, Goodstein & Goodstein, Summerville, for respondent Lurline Noisette.

Jon Austin, Wise & Cole, P.A., Charleston, for defendant Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.

David M. Collins, Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, Charleston, for defendant Allstate Ins. Co.

[304 S.C. 57] FINNEY, Justice:

Petitioner Penn National Insurance Company (Penn National) appeals from the Court of Appeals' opinion which affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded this declaratory judgment action to the circuit court. Noisette v. Ismail, 299 S.C. 243, 384 S.E.2d 310 (Ct.App.1989). We reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals' ruling which vacated the trial court's judgment that Penn National is liable for damages recovered by Respondent Lurline Noisette (Noisette) and remanded to the trial court for further consideration the issue of whether Defendant Bassem Ismail (Ismail) was a permissive user. The holding of the trial court on this sole issue is reinstated.

This action arose when Noisette sustained injuries and damages from an automobile accident on February 14, 1982, involving a vehicle driven by Ismail and owned by Defendant B.G. Owens d/b/a Auto Refurbishing (Owens). Noisette filed suit on February 15, 1983, and obtained a $60,000 judgment against Ismail. On December 11, 1984, Noisette brought a declaratory judgment action on the question of whether the vehicle driven by Ismail was covered under liability insurance provided by Penn National and Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) at the time of the accident.

The trial court determined (1) that Penn National provided garage liability insurance with a $100,000 limit to Owens on February 14, 1982; (2) that Ismail was an insured; and (3) that Penn National was obligated to satisfy Noisette's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
183 practice notes
  • In re Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh, No. 25503.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 22, 2002
    ...the appellate court should not vacate the trial court's judgment for lack of an explicit or specific factual finding." Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 123 (1991)(emphasis The court below, in deciding that Luckabaugh was not a sexually violent predator, wrote: Upon heari......
  • Floyd v. Floyd, No. 3997.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 13, 2005
    ...to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling on the argument, the appellate court cannot consider the argument on appeal. Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 Although the contempt finding and the award of fees are the law of the case, we nonetheless find the trial judge cor......
  • Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., 5858
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 1, 2021
    ...and Appellants did not subsequently seek the circuit court's ruling on this issue in a Rule 59(e) motion. See, e.g., Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (noting the circuit court did not explicitly rule on a particular argument, the appellant failed to show it ma......
  • Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., Appellate Case No. 2017-002611
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 1, 2021
    ...and Appellants did not subsequently seek the circuit court's ruling on this issue in a Rule 59(e) motion. See, e.g. , Noisette v. Ismail , 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (noting the circuit court did not explicitly rule on a particular argument, the appellant failed to show it ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
183 cases
  • In re Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh, No. 25503.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 22, 2002
    ...the appellate court should not vacate the trial court's judgment for lack of an explicit or specific factual finding." Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 123 (1991)(emphasis The court below, in deciding that Luckabaugh was not a sexually violent predator, wrote: Upon heari......
  • Floyd v. Floyd, No. 3997.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 13, 2005
    ...to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling on the argument, the appellate court cannot consider the argument on appeal. Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 Although the contempt finding and the award of fees are the law of the case, we nonetheless find the trial judge cor......
  • Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., 5858
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 1, 2021
    ...and Appellants did not subsequently seek the circuit court's ruling on this issue in a Rule 59(e) motion. See, e.g., Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (noting the circuit court did not explicitly rule on a particular argument, the appellant failed to show it ma......
  • Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., Appellate Case No. 2017-002611
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 1, 2021
    ...and Appellants did not subsequently seek the circuit court's ruling on this issue in a Rule 59(e) motion. See, e.g. , Noisette v. Ismail , 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (noting the circuit court did not explicitly rule on a particular argument, the appellant failed to show it ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT