Stanley v. Reserve Ins. Co.
| Citation | 121 S.E.2d 10,238 S.C. 533 |
| Decision Date | 18 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 17806,17806 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | Murrell STANLEY, Respondent, v. RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
Hagood, Rivers & Young, Charleston, Burroughs & Green, Conway, for appellant.
J. Reuben Long, J. M. Long, Jr., Conway, for respondent.
This action was brought by the respondent, Murrell Stanley, against the appellant, Reserve Insurance Company, to recover, under an automobile liability insurance policy, the amount of a judgment obtained against appellant's insured, Weylon B. Rabon. The policy of insurance was issued on a truck owned by Rabon and this appeal involves the extent of the coverage afforded by the policy.
The respondent, Murrell Stanley, obtained judgment by default against Weylon B. Rabon for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a collision with a truck and trailer owned by Rabon. At the time of the collision the truck was being operated with a trailer attached. Rabon held an automobile liability insurance policy issued to him by the appellant, Reserve Insurance Company, in which his truck was designated as the insured vehicle, but not the trailer. The policy contained a clause excluding coverage when the insured vehicle is used for towing a trailer not covered by like insurance in the company.
The appellant denied liability under the policy upon the grounds that (1) the truck operated by Rabon at the time of collision was not the vehicle designated and shown in the policy and (2) the vehicle operated at the time of the collision by Rabon was towing an uninsured trailer in violation of the terms of the policy.
Upon the trial of this case both appellant and respondent made motions for a directed verdict in their favor. The trial court refused the motion of the appellant and granted that of the respondent for the amount of the judgment previously obtained against Rabon, the insured. Thereafter appellant's motions for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative for a new trial, were denied and this appeal followed.
While the exceptions raise several questions relating to the identity of the truck insured and the admissibility of certain testimony, it is only necessary to decide whether or not the claim of the respondent is defeated by the provision of the policy excluding coverage when the vehicle insured is used for towing an uninsured trailer. In doing so, we shall assume that the truck operated by Rabon at the time was the one designated and shown in the policy.
Rabon was engaged in the logging business and the vehicle operated at the time of the collision by him was a two ton truck to which was connected a pole trailer of the type used for logging operations. The collision, out of which respondent's injury and damage arises, occurred when the respondent's automobile struck the truck and trailer as it was pulling into the highway from a filling station.
The pertinent part of exclusion C of the policy in question reads as follows: 'This policy does not apply while the automobile is used for the towing of any trailer owned or hired by the insured not covered by like insurance in the company.'
The foregoing provisions are not uncommon in policies of automobile liability insurance. They are generally held valid and enforceable because of the added hazard created by the towing of the trailer. 5A Am.Jur., Section 33, page 34; 45 C.J.S. Insurance § 834, page 913; 7 Appleman Insurance Law and Practice, Section 4438; 6 Blashfield Cyc. of Automobile Law and Practice, Section 3973; Annotation: 31 A.L.R.2d 298; and the cases cited in the foregoing. The added hazard of towing a trailer is one for which an additional premium is ordinarily charged.
It is undisputed that, at the time of the collision in question, the insured vehicle was towing a trailer, owned by the insured, not covered by like insurance in the company. The foregoing policy provision expressly excluded coverage under such circumstances, is valid and binding between the parties, and defeats recovery in this case.
At the time of the application for the policy the question regarding the insurance of a trailer was not discussed, and the record is silent as to any knowledge by the agent of the use of a trailer with the truck insured. There was no request for insurance of a trailer and no disclosure of information as to the type truck being insured, except that it was a two ton truck.
The respondent contends, however, that the provisions of the South Carolina Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (Section 46-701 et seq. of the 1952 Code of Laws) require the conclusion that coverage is afforded by the policy, notwithstanding the provision of the policy to the contrary. The lower Court, in effect, so held.
The policy of insurance in question was obtained by Rabon pursuant to the mandatory terms of the foregoing Act, and the required certificate of its issuance was duly filed by appellant with the State Highway Department. It is conceded that the policy was issued to comply with the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act and to enable Rabon to establish financial responsibility for the future operations of his truck as required by that law. The policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Progressive N. Ins. Co.
...liability policy, thus giving rise to a strong inference that no other exceptions were intended” (overruling Stanley v. Reserve Ins. Co., 238 S.C. 533, 121 S.E.2d 10 (1961), and Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sur. Indem. Co., 246 S.C. 220, 143 S.E.2d 371 (1965), to the extent they were inconsistent......
-
Heaton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
...Co. (1966) 247 S.C. 282, 286-287, 147 S.E.2d 273. As originally enacted, they were authoritatively construed in Stanley v. Reserve Ins. Co. (1961) 238 S.C. 533, 121 S.E.2d 10, which involved a policy issued under the uninsured motorist legislation at the time. There, the Court said (p. 538,......
-
Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Parker
...that the courts in this State, rather than holding use exclusions void, have specifically found them valid in Stanley v. Reserve Insurance Co., 238 S.C. 533, 121 S.E.2d 10 (1961), American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Surety Indemnity Co., 246 S.C. 220, 143 S.E.2d 371 (1965), and Heaton v. State ......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brown
...a[n insurance] policy must insure against any and all liability regardless of the circumstances." See also Stanley v. Reserve Insurance Co., 238 S.C. 533, 121 S.E.2d 10 (1961). (In upholding the validity of an exclusionary clause against a claim of contravention of the Act, the court declar......