South Carolina Farm Bureau v. Scott, 21140

Citation274 S.C. 264,262 S.E.2d 739
Decision Date05 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 21140,21140
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesSOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU, d/b/a, a/k/a Southern Farm Bureau, Appellant, v. Ronald C. SCOTT, Arthur Prosser and Michael Prosser, Respondents.

M. M. Weinberg, Jr. of Weinberg, Warner, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for appellant.

Marion S. Riggs of Rogers, Riggs & Rickenbaker, Manning, for respondents Prosser, et al.

James W. Rion and Kenneth M. Suggs, Columbia, for respondent Scott.

GREGORY, Justice:

Appellant South Carolina Farm Bureau, d/b/a, a/k/a Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., appeals an order awarding summary judgment to respondent Ronald C. Scott. We reverse.

This declaratory judgment action was commenced by appellant seeking an adjudication as to coverage under an automobile liability policy of insurance issued to respondent Arthur Prosser. It appears that Prosser's son, respondent Michael Prosser, was the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident in which respondent Scott was injured. Scott thereafter brought suit against both Arthur and Michael Prosser for personal injuries, precipitating the instant action by Arthur Prosser's insurer to determine its coverage responsibility for Scott's claim.

Both appellant and respondent Scott moved for summary judgment on the issue of coverage, which in this case turns on the identity of the true owner of the vehicle. Appellant contended the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is that respondent Michael Prosser owned the vehicle, and thus the policy issued to Arthur Prosser afforded no coverage for Scott's claim. Respondent Scott took the contrary position, and the lower court agreed, that Arthur, not Michael, acquired the vehicle and Michael was merely a permissive driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Appellant first contends the lower court clearly erred by entertaining respondent Scott's oral motion, which was made at the hearing on appellant's motion and without notice to appellant. We need not, however, reach this issue in view of our conclusion that material issues of fact exist so as to preclude an award of summary judgment for either respondent Scott or appellant. Baker v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Group, S.C., 253 S.E.2d 369 (1979); see also Circuit Court Rule 44(c).

The lower court ruled as a matter of law the vehicle was covered under the "Automatic Insurance For Newly Acquired Automobile" paragraph of the policy, which provides in pertinent part:

If the named insured (Arthur Prosser) or spouse acquires ownership of an additional automobile and so notifies the Company within thirty days following the date of its delivery . . . such insurance as is afforded by this policy applies to such other automobile as of such delivery . . . date . . . .

We have held that coverage is not extended under such a clause of an automobile liability policy where the insured took title to the vehicle but was not the "true owner" thereof. Bankers Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Griffin, 244 S.C. 552, 137 S.E.2d 785 (1964). Additionally, a majority of this Court recently concluded one in possession of a stolen automobile could not have acquired ownership thereof for purposes of an automatic insurance clause, relying on the definition of "owner" found in the Motor Vehicle Responsibility Act, Chapter 9 of Title 56, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), as the "person who holds legal title." Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Douglas, S.C., 255 S.E.2d 828 (1979). In the case of Robinson v. Georgia Casualty and Surety Company, 235 S.C. 178, 110 S.E.2d 255 (1959), it was stated that " . . . to be covered as a newly acquired automobile, the vehicle must be one in which the named insured not only has an insurable interest he must own the automobile." 110 S.E.2d at 261. Thus, ownership for purposes of coverage under a "Newly Acquired Automobile" clause of an automobile liability policy is a question decided by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of the case. See ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Pennell v. Foster
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 1999
    ...National. The issue of ownership is a question of fact for purposes of coverage under insurance policies. South Carolina Farm Bureau v. Scott, 274 S.C. 264, 262 S.E.2d 739 (1980). The determination depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case in question. Id. Though a certifi......
  • Bissette v. Auto–owners Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 2010
    ...of a vehicle in South Carolina is a question of fact for purposes of coverage under insurance policies. South Carolina Farm Bureau v. Scott, 274 S.C. 264, 262 S.E.2d 739 (1980). The determination depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case in question. Id. A certificate of t......
  • South v. Sherwood Chevrolet, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1982
    ...Art. 1, § 14, Art. 5, § 18. Summary judgment should not be granted where genuine issues of material fact exist, S. C. Farm Bureau v. Scott, 274 S.C. 264, 262 S.E.2d 739 (1980). S.C.Code, 1976, § 56-9-10, et seq. nor should a motion for a directed verdict or judgment N.O.V. Circuit Court Rul......
  • Murphy v. Hagan, 21307
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1980
    ...factual issues which must be determined at trial. Hook, as Admrx. v. Rothstein, S.C., 268 S.E.2d 288 (1980); South Carolina Farm Bureau v. Scott, S.C., 262 S.E.2d 739 (1980). The majority correctly notes "both parties had their then mutual attorney draw up the agreement in controversy" wher......
  • 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