Spaulding v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 19771
| Decision Date | 11 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19771,19771 |
| Citation | 202 S.E.2d 653,262 S.C. 95 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Inez Weeks SPAULDING, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
Padgett, Altman & Fuller, North Charleston, for appellant.
Grimball & Cabaniss, Charleston, for respondent.
This controversy began with a three-car collision, in which an unidentified automobile collided with an automobile operated by one Goude, causing the Goude automobile to collide with plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff's tort action against Goude and 'John Doe,' as operator of the unknown vehicle, resulted in a verdict in plaintiff's favor against 'John Doe' alone for $7,500.00, thus exonerating Goude. Plaintiff then brought this action to recover the amount of the judgment against hre automobile liability insurer on the uninsured motorist endorsement of her policy. She was denied recovery on the sole ground that the facts stated do not meet the 'physical contact' requirement of Section 46--750.34, 1962 Code of Laws (Supp.1971). The primary issue on this appeal by plaintiff is whether the court erred in construing the statute as requiring direct physical contact between the unknown vehicle and the vehicle occupied by plaintiff.
Section 46--750.34, supra, imposes three conditions on uninsured motorist coverage when the owner or operator of the vehicle causing injury of damage to the insured is unknown. The requirement in issue is stated in the second condition, as follows, 'The injury or damage was caused by physical contact with the unknown vehicle.' We applied this condition to deny recovery under the endorsement in Coker v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 251 S.C. 175, 161 S.E.2d 175 (1968), and Wynn v. Doe, 255 S.C. 509, 180 S.E.2d 95 (1971). In neither of these cases was there physical contact between the unidentified vehicle and any person or thing involved in the accident. The distinction between those cases and this one, where there was such physical contact, is manifest. The question now to be answered was expressly reserved in Coker. 251 S.C. at 182, 161 S.E.2d 175.
The statute does require causal physical contact with the unknown vehicle, on the absence of which our decisions in Coker and Wynn rested. It does not require direct physical contact by the hit-and-run automobile with plaintiff or with the insured automobile. Here, it has been established by the verdict of the jury in the tort case, and is conceded by the parties, that the tortious...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Howser
...vehicle caused another driver to swerve his vehicle and strike car in which insured was riding); Spaulding v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 262 S.C. 95, 202 S.E.2d 653 (1974) (causal physical contact sufficient, hence coverage, where unidentified vehicle struck another car and caused......
-
Clark v. Regent Ins. Co.
... ... & Riter, Pierre, for defendant and respondent Milbank Mut. Ins. Co ... Timothy J. Nimick of Woods, ... Biggs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1977 Okl., 569 P.2d 430, ... 2d 293; ... So. Carolina: Spaulding v. State Farm Mutual ... Insurance Co ... ...
-
Illinois Nat. Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 82-829
...313 So.2d 598 (La.1973); Lord v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. (1970), 22 Mich.App. 669, 177 N.W.2d 653; Spaulding v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (1974), 262 S.C. 95, 202 S.E.2d 653; Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co. (Tex.Civ.App.1972), 482 S.W.2d 655, error refused n.r.e.; John......
-
Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arnold
... ... The Court of Appeals reversed, citing the following dictum in State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v. Mitchell, 553 S.W.2d 691 (Ky.1977): ... , 273 A.D.2d 466, 710 N.Y.S.2d 111, 112 (N.Y.App.Div.2000); Spaulding v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., ... 262 S.C. 95, 202 S.E.2d 653, 654 (1974) ... ...