Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fulton

Decision Date10 August 1964
Docket NumberNo. 18253,18253
Citation137 S.E.2d 769,244 S.C. 559
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. Charles FULTON, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Melvin Alexander Fulton, and Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Maggie Gibbs Fulton, and John L. Clemmer, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Jake Bostick, Respondents.

Horger & Horger, Orangeburg, for appellant.

Luke N. Brown, Jr., Ridgeland, Lewis C. Trice, Columbia, for respondents.

LEWIS, Justice.

The plaintiff, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, issued on September 19, 1962, for a term of one year, an automobile liability insurance policy to Melvin Alexander Fulton, which had attached to it an uninsured motorist endorsement. On January 26, 1963, Fulton and his wife, Maggie Gibbs Fulton, were killed in an automobile-train collision while riding as passengers in the automobile of an uninsured motorist. Actions were thereafter brought against the estate of the uninsured motorist, who was also killed in the collision, for the alleged wrongful deaths of Fulton and his wife. The plaintiff acknowledged coverage under the uninsured motorist endorsement for the wrongful death of Fulton, the named insured, but denied any liability for the wrongful death of the wife on the ground that she was not an insured under the policy definition of that term. It was conceded that the wife did not come within the definition of an insured as contained in the uninsured motorist endorsement in the policy. Question arose, however, as to whether the statutes of this State required the policy issued by the plaintiff to afford coverage to the wife under the circumstances, and this action for declaratory judgment was brought by the plaintiff to determine such question. The lower court held that the wife was an insured under the policy by virtue of the mandatory provisions of the Uninsured Motorist Act, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The question to be decided is whether an uninsured motorist endorsement in an automobile liability insurance policy is required to cover, as an insured, the spouse of the named insured.

Our decision is controlled by the Uninsured Motorist Act of this State. The statutes requiring uninsured motorist coverage in automobile liability insurance policies was first enacted in 1959, 51 Stat. 567, with amendments in 1960, 51 Stat. 1902, and in 1963, 53 Stat. 526. These statutes, a amended prior to 1963, are contained in Section 46-750.11 and Sections 46-750.14 through 46-750.18 of the 1962 Code of Laws; and are a part of the South Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, Sections 46-701 through 46-750.28 of the 1962 Code of Laws. Further provisions relating to the establishment of an Uninsured Motorists Fund and the requirements for registration of uninsured motor vehicles, as amended prior to 1963, are found in Sections 46-135 through 46-138.8 of the 1962 Code of Laws.

The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act was enacted in 1952 and did not require a motorist to carry liability insurance until after he had an accident. This left those who carried insurance exposed to the possibility of financial loss from a collision with the uninsured and financially irresponsible motorist. The General Assembly sought to remedy this by the adoption of the Uninsured Motorist Act as a means of shifting the cost of the uninsured motorist's negligence to the uninsured motorist himself. Under its terms, every person in this State who obtains a license to operate an uninsured motor vehicle must pay an annual fee, not to exceed $20.00, into the Uninsured Motorist Fund. Section 46-136. Therefore, every person who registers and licenses a motor vehicle in this State must show that the vehicle is one as to which there is a liability insurance policy in effect or he must pay the uninsured motorist fee. The Uninsured Motorist Fund, into which the foregoing fees are paid, is distributed annually among the automobile liability insurance companies operating in this State as reimbursement for losses sustained in providing uninsured motorist coverage in the policies issued by them. Section 46-138.4.

Having required every person who registers an uninsured motor vehicle to pay the specified fee into the Uninsured Motorist Fund and that such fund be distributed among the insurance companies providing uninsured motorist coverage, the General Assembly provided in Section 46-750.14 that no policy or contract of bodily injury or property damage automobile liability insurance shall be issued or delivered in this State, unless it contains an endorsement or provisions undertaking to pay 'the insured,' within specified limits, all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, and that such protection be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Parker
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 16, 1984
    ...down provisions which have the effect of limiting the coverage requirements of the statute[s]. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Fulton, 244 S.C. 559, 137 S.E.2d 769 (1964); Ferguson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., [261 S.C. 96, 198 S.E.2d 522 (1973) ]; Hogan v. ......
  • Ferguson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 2, 1973
    ...and the pertient provisions of the statutes prevail as much as if expressly incorporated in the policy. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fulton, 244 S.C. 559, 137 S.E.2d 769. To permit the appellant, under the uninsured motorist endorsement, to exclude coverage where the insured is ent......
  • Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Foust
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 4, 2022
    ... ... judgment.” Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil ... Co. , 312 U.S. 270, 273 ... and unenforceable. See, e.g., S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins ... Co. v. Fulton, 137 S.E.2d 769 ... ...
  • Bankers Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Griffin, 18252
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 10, 1964
    ... ... Campbell, 234 S.C. 1, 106 S.E.2d 447; Crook v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 235 S.C. 452, 112 S.E.2d 241; ... ...
  • 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