Sheffield v. American Indem. Co., 18314

• Decision Date: 02 March 1965
• Docket Number: No. 18314,18314
• Citation: 140 S.E.2d 787,245 S.C. 389
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , 13 A.L.R.3d 1220 Shelley R. SHEFFIELD, Appellant, v. AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent.

Page 787

140 S.E.2d 787

245 S.C. 389, 13 A.L.R.3d 1220

Shelley R. SHEFFIELD, Appellant, v. AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 18314.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 2, 1965.

Kale R. Alexander, David A. Fedor, Columbia, for appellant.

Lumpkin, Kemmerlin & Medlock, Columbia, for respondent.

MOSS, Justice:

Shelley R. Sheffield, the appellant herein, instituted this action to recover from American Indemnity Company, the respondent herein, the sum of $10,000.00, being a portion of a default judgment obtained against one Herman Boyd Shealy, an uninsured motorist.

The appellant was the owner of a Ford Station Wagon and on December 25, 1961, Gloria J. Sheffield, his wife, while driving said motor vehicle, was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle driven by Herman Boyd Shealy, resulting in bodily injury to her. Thereafter, the said Gloria J. Sheffield instituted an action against Herman Boyd Shealy and, on June 11, 1963, obtained a judgment against him in the amount of $30,000.00 actual damages, and $500.00 punitive damages, in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County.

The appellant herein also instituted an action against the said Herman Boyd Shealy seeking to recover damages for loss of consortium and reimbursement for medical expenses arising out of the bodily injury sustained by his wife. This action was tried in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County and the appellant, on January 3, 1964, recovered judgment against Herman Boyd Shealy in the amount of $15,000.00 actual damages.

Section 46-750.13 of the 1962 Code of Laws provides that all contracts of bodily injury liability insurance shall provide limits of at least: '* * * Ten thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident, and, subject to such limit for one person, twenty thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident * * *.'

Section 46-750.14 of the Code provides:

'Nor shall any such policy or contract be so issued or delivered as described in Sec. 46-750.13 unless it contains an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay the insured all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, within limits which shall be no less than the requirements of Sec. 46-750.13.'

American Indemnity Company, the respondent herein, on April 8, 1961, issued to the appellant a 'Family Combination Automobile Policy' which provided 'Bodily Injury Liability' in the amount of $10,000.00 for each person. Attached to and forming a part of the aforesaid policy was the uninsured motorist endorsement, written in compliance with the above quoted statutes, and which after stating the limits of liability for 'bodily injury $10,000.00 each person; $20,000.00 each accident', states that the respondent agrees with the insured, subject to the limits of liability, exclusions, conditions and other terms of this endorsement and to the applicable terms of the policy, to pay 'all sums which the insured * * * shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner of operator of an uninsured automobile because of: (a) bodily injury * * * sustained by the insured * * * caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile.' The endorsement includes in the definition of an 'insured' * * * 'any person, with respect to damages he is entitled to recover for care or loss of services because of bodily injury to which this endorsement applies.' The endorsement further provides that 'the insurance applies separately with respect to each insured under this endorsement, but neither this provision nor application of the insurance to more than one insured shall operate to increase the limits of the company's liability.' It is further provided:

'The limit of bodily injury liability stated in the schedule as applicable to 'each person' is the limit of the company's liability for all damages, including damages for care or loss of services because of bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of any one accident and, subject to the above provision respecting each person, the limit of such liability stated in the schedule as applicable to 'each accident' is the total limit of the company's liability for all damages, including damages for care or loss of services, because of bodily injury sustained by two or more persons as the result of any one accident.'

The aforesaid policy, with the uninsured motorist endorsement thereon, was in full force and effect when Gloria J. Sheffield, the wife of the appellant, was involved in a collision with Herman Boyd Shealy, an uninsured motorist, as a result of which she received bodily injuries. It was for these bodily injuries that she obtained the judgment heretofore referred to against the said uninsured motorist. The respondent, on June 25, 1963, paid to the said Gloria J. Sheffield, under the aforesaid uninsured motorist endorsement, the sum of $10,000.00 for her bodily injuries, this being the total limit of liability of the respondent for bodily injury to one person.

It is agreed that the cause of action of the appellant against the uninsured motorist was one by the husband solely for the loss of consortium and for reimbursement for medical expenses of his wife which arose as a result of the bodily injuries sustained by her. It was further agreed that the appellant suffered no physical or bodily injury. The appellant alleges that under the terms of the aforesaid policy, including the uninsured motorist endorsement, that he is entitled to recover from the respondent the sum of $10,000.00, this being a part of his judgment against the uninsured motorist for the loss of consortium of his wife and the medical expenses incurred for her care and treatment.

The respondent, by way of defense, asserts that under its policy of insurance, including the uninsured motorist endorsement the limit of its liability for injury was $10,000.00 where only one person received bodily injury; that the appellant did not receive bodily injury; that his judgment was for consequential damages only suffered by him as a result of bodily injuries sustained by his wife; that the respondent has paid to his wife the sum of $10,000.00 for her bodily injuries which was the limit of its liability under its policy; that having discharged its liability in the aforesaid manner, further recovery could not be had by appellant against the respondent.

The Master in Equity for Richland County, to whom this cause was referred, as well as the trial judge, denied the relief asked for the appellant. This appeal followed.

The first question for determination is whether, under an uninsured motorist endorsement which limits the liability of the insurer for bodily injury to $10,000.00 for each person and $20,000.00 for each accident, a husband, whose wife has already recovered $10,000.00 for her bodily injury claim, is entitled to recover further damages under such endorsement for loss of consortium and the expenses he has incurred in behalf of his wife.

The consequential damages sustained by the appellant because of the injuries to his wife are 'personal injuries' and not 'bodily injuries'. The contract of insurance, with which we are here concerned, agrees to indemnify for 'bodily injuries' and the sum of $10,000.00 is the total limit of liability of the respondent for...