Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Windstorm and Hail Underwriting Ass'n, 23515
| Decision Date | 31 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23515,23515 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN MUTUAL CHURCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA WINDSTORM AND HAIL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, Respondent. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
David B. Betts, Chapin, for appellant.
James C. Gray, Jr., and B. Rush Smith, III, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.
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.
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 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.
The statute creating the Association and excluding certain insurers from participation provides as follows:
There is created the South Carolina Windstorm and Hail Underwriting Association, consisting of all private insurers authorized to write and engage in writing property insurance within this State on a direct and statewide basis, but excluding insurers whose writings are limited to property wholly owned by parent, subsidiary, or allied organizations. Every such insurer must be a member of the Association and must remain a member of the Association so long as the Association is in existence as a condition of its authority to continue to transact the business of insurance in this State.
S.C.Code Ann. § 38-75-330 (1989) (emphasis added). 1
Southern Mutual contends that it should be excluded from participation in the Association because it writes insurance for property wholly owned by churches, which are "allied" through the gospel, and are therefore "allied organizations" within the meaning of Section 38-75-330. The Association contends that the term "allied organizations" refers to organizations allied with the insurer through some form of ownership or control and not to organizations allied with one another. We agree.
Section 38-75-330 does not define the term "allied organizations." Consequently, we must utilize principles of statutory construction in order to ascertain the legislature's intent as to the meaning of this term.
Clearly, words in a statute must be construed in context. Hancock v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 211 S.C. 432, 45 S.E.2d 850 (1947). According to the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of particular terms in a statute may be ascertained by reference to words associated with them in the statute. 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes, § 213 (1974). We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dupree
...and their meaning determined by 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, ......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Sc Second Injury Fund
...332-33, 592 S.E.2d 335, 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 languag......
-
Eagle Container v. County of Newberry, 4037.
...in the statute." Morgan, 352 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 cl......
-
State v. Baucom, 2946.
...and their meaning determined 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......