South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mooneyham, 23395

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Citation: 405 S.E.2d 396,304 S.C. 442
• Docket Number: No. 23395,23395
• Parties: SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. Cynthia M. MOONEYHAM, Kenneth J. Mooneyham, Steven R. Stickles, Margie U. Brunson and Richard H. Brunson, Appellants. . Heard
• Decision Date: 05 February 1991

Page 396

405 S.E.2d 396

304 S.C. 442

SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, Respondent, v. Cynthia M. MOONEYHAM, Kenneth J. Mooneyham, Steven R.

Stickles, Margie U. Brunson and Richard H.

Brunson, Appellants.

No. 23395.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Feb. 5, 1991.

Decided May 6, 1991.

Rehearing Denied July 1, 1991.

[304 S.C. 443] John E. Miles, Sumter, for appellants.

M.M. Weinberg, III, of Weinberg, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for respondent.

HARWELL, Justice:

Respondent South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau) filed this declaratory judgment action to determine the amount of underinsured motorist benefits it was obligated to pay under three policies issued to the insured, appellant Cynthia M. Mooneyham. Mooneyham claimed that she was entitled to stack the underinsured motorist coverage provided in the policies. The trial judge held that Mooneyham could not stack the underinsured coverage because the policy covering the car involved in the accident provided excess underinsured coverage. We reverse.

DISCUSSION

At the time of the automobile accident Mooneyham was a Class I ¹ insured under three automobile insurance policies issued by Farm Bureau. The policy covering the vehicle involved in the accident provided underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $25,000/$50,000/$25,000. The two other policies each provided underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of basic limits, $15,000/$30,000/$15,000. Farm Bureau paid Mooneyham $25,000 in underinsured motorist benefits under the policy covering the car involved in the accident. Mooneyham argues that she is entitled to stack the underinsured motorist coverage available under her other two policies. The trial judge held that Mooneyham could not stack any further underinsured motorist coverage. We disagree.

The statute controlling Mooneyham's right to stack underinsured motorist benefits provides in pertinent part:

Automobile insurance carriers shall offer, at the option of the insured, uninsured motorist coverage up to the limits of the insured's liability coverage in addition to the mandatory coverage prescribed by § 38-77-150. Such carriers shall also offer, at the option of the insured, underinsured motorist 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. If, however, an insured or named insured is protected by uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage in excess of the basic limits, the policy shall provide that the insured or named insured is protected only to the extent of the coverage he has on the vehicle involved in the accident.

S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (1989) (emphasis added).

We have interpreted the emphasized language of this statute and its effect on stacking in three cases: Gambrell v. Travelers Ins. Co.'s, 280 S.C. 69, 310 S.E.2d 814 (1983); Garris v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 280 S.C. 149, 311 S.E.2d 723 (1984); and Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Howard, 288 S.C. 5, 339 S.E.2d 501 (1985).

In Gambrell, the insured had one policy which provided underinsured motorist coverage for two vehicles in the basic limits of $15,000/$30,000/$5,000. We held that the insured was entitled to stack the underinsured coverage on the two vehicles. Again, in Garris, the policy in question had basic limits underinsured coverage. Although we held that the insureds could not stack because they were Class II insureds, we noted that if the insureds had been Class I insureds, they could have stacked. In Nationwide, ² as in the previous cases, the car involved in the accident had basic limits coverage. The insured claimed that he was entitled to stack six other policies, three basic limits policies, and three single limit policies which provided coverage of $35,000, for a total recovery of $150,000. We held that the insured was entitled to stack $15,000 from each of the three basic limits policies, and $15,000 from each of the three $35,000 single limit policies, for a total recovery of $90,000. We did not allow the insured to stack the three single limit $35,000 policies to the extent of $35,000. In refusing to allow the insured to stack these policies up to the $35,000 limit, we held that the language of the statute "limits the amount of coverage which may be stacked from policies on vehicles not involved in an accident to an amount no greater than the coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident." 288 S.C. at 11, 339 S.E.2d at 504. Thus, because the policy covering the car involved in the accident had only basic limits coverage, the insured could not recover any amount greater than the basic limits from any of the other policies.

In each of these three cases, Gambrell, Garris, and Nationwide, the car involved in the accident had basic limits underinsured coverage. In this case, we are for the first time presented...