Potomac Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 19041
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | BUSSEY; MOSS |
| Citation | 173 S.E.2d 653,254 S.C. 107 |
| Parties | The POTOMAC INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 19041,19041 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1970 |
Page 653
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
[254 S.C. 108]
Page 654
Bridges & Whisenhunt, Florence, for appellant.Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for respondent.
BUSSEY, Justice.
This is a controversy between two liability insurance carriers as to who shall bear the ultimate financial burden of the settlement of certain claims, which settlement was arranged and contributed to equally by both insurers, under an agreement whereby each reserved the right to litigate the issue of where the ultimate financial burden lay. The appellant, The Potomac Insurance Company, instituted this action [254 S.C. 109] to recover its contribution in the sum of $4,800.00 from the respondent, Allstate Insurance Company, and Allstate counterclaimed for a like sum contributed by it. Judgment below was awarded Allstate on its counterclaim and Potomac appealed.
The facts are not in dispute and the case was tried without a jury. Potomac issued a garage liability policy insuring Williams Chevrolet Company of Florence, South Carolina. This policy covered vehicles owned, used or maintained by Williams subject, however, to what Potomac designates a 'limited coverage endorsement'. In the course of its business, Williams undertook to repair an automobile belonging to one S. M. White. While White's vehicle was being repaired, Williams turned over to him a Corvair, owned by Williams and insured by Potomac, for White's unrestricted use. White had in effect an automobile liability policy with Allstate which provided that its coverage with respect to a non-owned automobile would be excess coverage in the event there was other valid and collectible insurance on the non-owned car.
While using Williams' vehicle covered by Potomac's policy, White was involved in a serious accident following which both insurers effected a settlement of the resulting claims as above set forth.
It is conceded by Potomac that its policy covered White while using the Williams' vehicle with the consent of Williams, but for the exclusionary endorsement which limits the omnibus coverage, and purportedly affords coverage to White only under and in accordance with the following paragraph of the endorsement:
'(b) any other person, but only if no other valid and collectible automobile liability insurance either primary or excess, with limits of liability at least equal
Page 655
to the minimum limits specified by the financial responsibility law of the state in which the automobile is principally garaged, is available to...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2906.
...a court would reform such policies for the mandatory minimum coverage of 15/30/5, 336 S.C. 221 not the policy limits. See Potomac, 254 S.C. 107, 111, 173 S.E.2d 653, 655 (court held the permissive user, "by virtue of the statutory law, was fully covered ... up to the statutory limits") (emp......
-
City of Myrtle Beach v. Juel P. Corp., 3049.
...property. The question is largely one of intention and must be determined from all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Id. at 105, 173 S.E.2d at 653 (citations The City claims Conway is distinguishable from this case because it discussed common law abandonment. The City relies on Gurga......
-
Gurganious v. City of Beaufort, 2304
...use as "a discontinuance of the nonconforming use with the intent to relinquish the right to so use the property." Id. at 105, 173 S.E.2d at 653. However, the facts of Conway are distinguishable from this case because the court did not have before it, nor did it address any municipal zoning......
-
S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 27147.
...and that a policy provision which contravenes an applicable statute is to that extent invalid.”); Potomac Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 254 S.C. 107, 173 S.E.2d 653 (1970) (holding exclusionary policy language, whether it constituted an attempt to redefine the term “insured” in contraventi......
-
George v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2906.
...a court would reform such policies for the mandatory minimum coverage of 15/30/5, 336 S.C. 221 not the policy limits. See Potomac, 254 S.C. 107, 111, 173 S.E.2d 653, 655 (court held the permissive user, "by virtue of the statutory law, was fully covered ... up to the statutory limits") (emp......
-
City of Myrtle Beach v. Juel P. Corp., 3049.
...property. The question is largely one of intention and must be determined from all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Id. at 105, 173 S.E.2d at 653 (citations The City claims Conway is distinguishable from this case because it discussed common law abandonment. The City relies on Gurga......
-
Gurganious v. City of Beaufort, 2304
...use as "a discontinuance of the nonconforming use with the intent to relinquish the right to so use the property." Id. at 105, 173 S.E.2d at 653. However, the facts of Conway are distinguishable from this case because the court did not have before it, nor did it address any municipal zoning......
-
S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 27147.
...and that a policy provision which contravenes an applicable statute is to that extent invalid.”); Potomac Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 254 S.C. 107, 173 S.E.2d 653 (1970) (holding exclusionary policy language, whether it constituted an attempt to redefine the term “insured” in contraventi......