South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 21639

Citation287 S.E.2d 475,277 S.C. 343
Decision Date09 February 1982
Docket NumberNo. 21639,21639
PartiesSOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. George F. ESTRADA, Respondent-Appellant, and State Farm Insurance Company, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

George H. O'Kelley, of O'Kelley, Fordham & Reid, Beaufort, for appellant.

John U. Bell, III, of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.

Robert C. Elliott, of Hyatt & Elliott, Columbia, for respondent-appellant.

NESS, Justice:

This is an action involving an uninsured motorist. Both SCIC (South Carolina Insurance Company) and Estrada appealed. We affirm and dismiss.

Estrada was injured in an accident while driving a car owned by Patricia Sullivan. Estrada obtained judgment for $60,000.00 against the uninsured driver of the other vehicle. Estrada then notified his insurer, SCIC, and State Farm, insurer of Sullivan's automobile, of his intent to "stack" the uninsured motorist coverage of both policies.

Initially SCIC sought summary judgment declaring State Farm to be Estrada's primary insurer. State Farm asserted it owed no coverage, contending Estrada was not a permissive user of the Sullivan vehicle. Estrada answered alleging numerous claims, including an allegation that SCIC acted in bad faith by refusing to settle or pay his claims earlier.

Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, in a separate trial, it was determined Estrada did not have permission to use Sullivan's vehicle, thus relieving State Farm of any liability under Sullivan's uninsured motorist coverage. SCIC and Estrada conceded at oral argument that this determination renders all issues concerning State Farm's liability moot.

This leaves for consideration only those exceptions raised by Estrada.

These exceptions are improper under Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6 for failing to contain a complete assignment of error. The appeal is dismissed. Diamond v. Powell, 271 S.C. 183, 246 S.E.2d 233 (1978); Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (1976).



To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Fisher v. South Carolina Dept. of Mental Retardation-Coastal Center, RETARDATION-COASTAL
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 26 April 1982
    ...Rule 4, § 6 for failure to state a complete assignment of error, nevertheless we address the merits of the case. S. C. Insurance Company v. Estrada, 287 S.E.2d 475 (S.C.1982). Under case law a claimant has three remedies for job-related injuries. (1) To proceed solely against the employer t......
  • Germain v. Nichol, 21846
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 5 January 1983
    ...violate Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6 because they do not contain a complete assignment of error. See South Carolina Insurance Department v. Estrada, S.C. 287 S.E.2d 475 (1982); Barbee v. Poston, S.C. 289 S.E.2d 649 (1982). We dismiss these Appellant's remaining exception is to the effect that ......
  • Burris v. State, 21740
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 28 June 1982
    ...exception is too general for consideration on appeal. Rule 4, § 6, Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court; South Carolina Insurance Company v. Estrada, S.C., 287 S.E.2d 475 (1982); State v. Rouse, 262 S.C. 581, 206 S.E.2d 873 Despite the inadequacy of appellant's exception, we have consider......
  • Howell v. Department of Social Services, 21749
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 30 June 1982
    ...of Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6, which requires an exception to contain a complete assignment of error. South Carolina Insurance Company v. Estrada, S.C., 287 S.E.2d 475 (1982). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 4, Section ...

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