Norwood v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 2690,2690 |
| Citation | 327 S.C. 503,489 S.E.2d 661 |
| Parties | Pamela L. NORWOOD, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Eugene C. Covington, Jr., of Covington, Patrick, Hagins & Lewis, Greenville, for appellant.
W. Francis Marion, Jr., of Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, Greenville, for respondent.
Pamela L. Norwood brought this declaratory judgment action against Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), her automobile insurance carrier, seeking a declaration that underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage was part of her insurance policy. The trial court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment. Norwood appeals. The main issue on appeal concerns whether Allstate made a valid offer of UIM coverage. We hold Allstate made a valid offer and therefore affirm. 1
On August 17, 1994, Norwood was a passenger in her vehicle driven by her husband. The vehicle ran off the road and struck a tree, causing Norwood to suffer substantial injuries.
Norwood was insured under an Allstate automobile insurance policy. When Norwood purchased the policy, she selected liability limits of 25/50/25. Norwood expressly rejected UIM coverage.
Allstate paid Norwood $25,000 in liability coverage, but refused to pay Norwood's claim for UIM coverage. Norwood brought this action seeking to reform the policy to include UIM coverage, claiming Allstate failed to make a meaningful offer of UIM coverage under S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (Supp.1996). The trial court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, holding Allstate made a valid offer of UIM coverage.
To determine whether an insurer has complied with its duty to offer optional coverages and thus make a meaningful offer of UIM coverage, the court must consider the following factors: (1) the insurer's notification process must be commercially reasonable, whether oral or in writing; (2) the insurer must specify the limits of optional coverage and not merely offer additional coverage in general terms; (3) the insurer must intelligibly advise the insured of the nature of the optional coverage; and (4) the insured must be told optional coverages are available for an additional premium. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wannamaker, 291 S.C. 518, 354 S.E.2d 555 (1987). If the insurer fails to make a meaningful offer of UIM coverage, the court will reform the insured's policy to include UIM coverage up to the insured's liability coverage. Dewart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 296 S.C. 150, 370 S.E.2d 915 (Ct.App.1988).
Section 38-77-160 requires automobile insurance carriers to offer, at the option of the insured, UIM coverage "up to the limits of the insured liability coverage to provide coverage in the event that damages are sustained in excess of the liability limits carried by an at-fault insured or underinsured motorist...." S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (Supp.1996). Our courts have interpreted section 38-77-160 as requiring insurers to offer UIM coverage to the insured "in any amount up to the insured's liability coverage." Garris v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 280 S.C. 149, 154, 311 S.E.2d 723, 726 (1984).
In Osborne v. Allstate Ins. Co., 319 S.C. 479, 462 S.E.2d 291 (Ct.App.1995), cert. granted, (Mar. 7, 1996), the insureds had liability coverage of 15/30/5, the minimum amount of coverage that insurers must offer pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-140 (1989). This court held the insurer's offer of UIM coverage to the insureds was ineffective because the insurer's form did not indicate that "UIM coverage could be obtained in amounts less than the minimum liability limits of their policy." Id. at 488, 462 S.E.2d at 296.
Similarly, in Butler v. Unisun Ins. Co., 323 S.C. 402, 475 S.E.2d 758 (1996), our supreme court decided whether an insurer met the requirements of section 38-77-160 where "[t]he statutory form signed by ... [the insured] did not offer UIM coverage below the minimum limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident." Id. at 404, 475 S.E.2d at 759. The court held an insurer's failure to offer "UIM coverage up to the limits of the liability coverage" was ineffective and the court reformed the policy to include UIM coverage. Id. at 408, 475 S.E.2d at 761.
We disagree with Norwood's contention that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bower v. National General Ins. Co., 3234.
...chosen, it certainly could have said so.2 National General contends that the case at bar is controlled by Norwood v. Allstate Insurance Co., 327 S.C. 503, 489 S.E.2d 661 (Ct.App.1997). We In Norwood, this Court held that where an offer form listed at least three specific options of UIM cove......
-
Wilkes v. Freeman, 2935.
...not offered on the form. Horace Mann filed a motion to reconsider relying on this Court's decision in Norwood v. Allstate Ins. Co., 327 S.C. 503, 489 S.E.2d 661 (Ct.App.1997). Upon rehearing, the circuit court found Norwood controlling and concluded Horace Mann made a meaningful offer of UI......
-
Moody v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 3624.
...In each of the following cases, Butler v. Unisun Ins. Co., 323 S.C. 402, 407, 475 S.E.2d 758, 761 (1996), Norwood v. Allstate Ins. Co., 327 S.C. 503, 489 S.E.2d 661 (Ct.App.1997), and Osborne v. Allstate Ins. Co., 319 S.C. 479, 488, 462 S.E.2d 291, 296 (Ct.App.1995), the central holding was......
-
Bower v. NATIONAL GENERAL INS. CO.
...National General's primary argument to this Court is that the instant case is indistinguishable from Norwood v. Allstate Insurance Co., 327 S.C. 503, 489 S.E.2d 661 (Ct.App.1997) where the Court of Appeals found the offer of UIM coverage In Norwood, Allstate's form listed three choices of U......