Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm and Hail Underwriting Ass'n, No. 23515
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | HARWELL; CHANDLER, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ. and JOHN P. GARDNER |
| Citation | 306 S.C. 339,412 S.E.2d 377 |
| Docket Number | No. 23515 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1991 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN MUTUAL CHURCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA WINDSTORM AND HAIL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, Respondent. . Heard |
Page 377
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA WINDSTORM AND HAIL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
Decided Dec. 2, 1991.
Page 378
[306 S.C. 340] David B. Betts, Chapin, for appellant.
James C. Gray, Jr., and B. Rush Smith, III, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.
HARWELL, Justice:
Appellant Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (Southern Mutual) appeals from the order of the trial judge granting summary judgment to respondent South Carolina Windstorm and Hail Underwriting Association (Association). The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial judge erred in holding that Southern Mutual was not exempt from participation in the Association. We affirm.
I. FACTS
The legislature created the Association in 1971 to ensure that windstorm and hail insurance would be available in the coastal regions of South Carolina. See S.C.Code Ann §§ 38-75-310 - 38-75-460 (1989). All authorized property insurers in South Carolina are members of the Association and share expenses, profits, and losses of the Association. By statute, insurers[306 S.C. 341] whose "writings are limited to property wholly owned by parent, subsidiary, or allied organizations" are excluded from participation in the Association. S.C.Code Ann. § 38-75-330 (1989).
Southern Mutual is a domestic mutual insurance company created in 1928 to insure property owned by churches. Originally intended to insure the property of Baptist churches, Southern Mutual now writes insurance in South Carolina and Georgia for property owned by various Protestant denominations. Southern Mutual has been a member of the Association since the Association's inception, and has participated in the business of the Association by paying assessments and receiving profit distributions. Southern Mutual first requested exemption from participation in the Association in 1974, but this request was denied. Southern Mutual again requested an exemption in 1987, but this request was also denied.
Following the major destruction caused by Hurricane Hugo in 1989, the Association was required to assess its members in order to pay losses under its policies. Southern Mutual was assessed $1,020,200.00 as its pro rata share of anticipated losses. Subsequent to this assessment, Southern Mutual again sought an exemption from participation in the Association. After its request was denied, Southern Mutual paid the assessment under protest and commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it was exempt from participation in the Association and was, therefore, entitled to a refund of the $1,020,200.00. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial judge granted the Association's motion for summary judgment. Southern Mutual appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
The statute creating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eagle Container v. County of Newberry, No. 4037.
...S.C. at 366, 574 S.E.2d at 206 (Ct.App.2002) (citing Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 306 S.C. 339, 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991)). "Under the plain meaning rule, it is not the court's place to change the meaning of a clear and unambiguous stat......
-
State v. Dupree, No. 3657.
...looking at the other terms used in the statute. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm & Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 306 S.C. 339, 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991). Courts should consider not merely the language of the particular clause being construed, but the word and its meaning......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Sc Second Injury Fund, No. 3949.
...338 (Ct.App.2004), cert. granted (Jan. 7, 2005) (citing S. Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm & Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 306 S.C. 339, 342, 412 S.E.2d 377, 379 (1991)); Dupree, 354 S.C. at 693, 583 S.E.2d at Courts should consider not merely the language of the particular ......
-
State v. Baucom, No. 2946.
...by looking at the other terms used in the statute. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm and Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 306 S.C. 339, 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991). Courts should consider not merely the language of the particular clause being construed, but the word and its meanin......
-
Eagle Container v. County of Newberry, No. 4037.
...S.C. at 366, 574 S.E.2d at 206 (Ct.App.2002) (citing Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 306 S.C. 339, 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991)). "Under the plain meaning rule, it is not the court's place to change the meaning of a clear and unambiguous stat......
-
State v. Dupree, No. 3657.
...looking at the other terms used in the statute. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm & Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 306 S.C. 339, 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991). Courts should consider not merely the language of the particular clause being construed, but the word and its meaning......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Sc Second Injury Fund, No. 3949.
...338 (Ct.App.2004), cert. granted (Jan. 7, 2005) (citing S. Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm & Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 306 S.C. 339, 342, 412 S.E.2d 377, 379 (1991)); Dupree, 354 S.C. at 693, 583 S.E.2d at Courts should consider not merely the language of the particular ......
-
State v. Baucom, No. 2946.
...by looking at the other terms used in the statute. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm and Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 306 S.C. 339, 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991). Courts should consider not merely the language of the particular clause being construed, but the word and its meanin......