State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Windham

• Decision Date: 19 August 2020
• Docket Number: Opinion No. 5764,Appellate Case No. 2016-002185
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. Myra M. WINDHAM, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

432 S.C. 134

850 S.E.2d 633

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent,

v.Myra M. WINDHAM, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002185

Opinion No. 5764

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard October 15, 2019

Filed August 19, 2020

Rehearing Denied December 1, 2020

Stephen H. Cook and John K. Koon, both of Koon Cook and Walters, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Alfred Johnston Cox and Jessica Waller Laffitte, both of Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent.

KONDUROS, J.:

Myra M. Windham appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on its declaratory judgment action. State Farm sought a determination that Windham could not stack her underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from her policies with it when she was in an automobile accident while driving a rental car. We reverse.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Windham was involved in an automobile accident on September 29, 2012. The other party's insurance supplied her with a rental car. On October 5, 2012, while she was driving the rental car, she was involved in another accident. At the time, Windham and her husband (collectively, the Windhams) had multiple automobile insurance policies with State Farm. State Farm filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that Windham could not stack UIM coverage from multiple policies. The parties stipulated to the following facts before the circuit court:

1. On September 29, 2012, ... Windham ... was involved in an automobile accident with Stephen H. Keever ... while operating her 2007 Toyota Camry, which was repaired sometime after the October 5, 2012 accident.

2. On October 5, 2012, six days after the first wreck, ... Windham was involved in an automobile accident with Jennifer Mary McArdle ... while operating a 2013 Dodge rental car from Enterprise Leasing Corporation as a replacement for her automobile which was damaged and out of service from the September 29, 2012 accident.

3. Windham was using the rental car on October 5, 2012, as a temporary substitute vehicle because her vehicle had been rendered inoperable following the accident on September 29, 2012.

4. The rental car was paid for by Keever's liability carrier, Allstate Insurance Company.

5. None of the Windhams’ vehicles were involved in the accident on October 5, 2012.

6. Windham was injured as a result of the October 5, 2012[ ] accident and claims that her injuries exceed the amount of McArdle's liability insurance, which has already been paid in full.

7. State Farm issued five automobile policies ... ("the Policy or Policies")[ ] to Myra M. Windham and/or Paul A. Windham that were in effect at the time of the accidents. All of the Policies contain identical language.

....

9. ... Windham was an insured under all of the aforementioned Policies issued by State Farm.

10. The 2013 Dodge rental car meets the definition of a "temporary substitute car" as defined by each of the Policies.

11. The Dodge owned by Enterprise Leasing and rented to Windham at the time of the accident is not a vehicle shown under "YOUR CAR" on the Declarations Page of any of the Policies issued to Myra[ ] M. Windham and/or Paul A. Windham.

12. The Dodge rental car being driven by Windham at the time of the October 5, 2012 accident does not meet the definition of "owned by" in the policy.

13. State Farm has paid a single limit of UIM from one of the Windhams’ policies in the amount of $100,000.00 to Windham as a result of the October 5, 2012 accident.

14. State Farm seeks a determination from this [c]ourt that Windham is not permitted to stack UIM coverage under the terms of State Farm's Policies or South Carolina law because none of her vehicles were involved in the accident on October 5, 2012.

15. ... Windham seeks a determination from this [c]ourt that she is entitled to stack the remaining UIM limits from her other Policies with State Farm because the 2013 Dodge rental car qualifies as a temporary substitute vehicle.

One of the first sections of the car policy booklet from State Farm is entitled "DEFINITIONS. " The first sentence of that section states, "We define certain words and phrases below for use throughout the policy. Each coverage includes additional definitions only for use with that coverage." Below are some relevant definitions from that section.

Non-Owned Car means a car that is in the lawful possession of you or any resident relative and that neither:

1. is owned by:

a. you;

b. any resident relative;

c. any other person who resides primarily in your household; or

d. an employer of any person described in a., b., or c. above; nor

2. has been operated by, rented by, or in the possession of:

a. you; or

b. any resident relative during any part of each of the 31 or more consecutive days immediately prior to the date of the accident or loss.

Owned By means:

1. owned by;

2. registered to; or

3. leased, if the lease is written for a period of 31 or more consecutive days, to.

Temporary Substitute Car means a car that is in the lawful possession of the person operating it and that:

1. replaces your car for a short time while your car is out of use due to its:

a. breakdown; b. repair;

c. servicing;

d. damage; or

e. theft; and

2. neither you nor the person operating it own or have registered.

If a car qualifies as both a non-owned car and a temporary substitute car, then it is considered a temporary substitute car only.

Your Car means the vehicle shown under "YOUR CAR" on the Declarations Page. Your car does not include a vehicle that you no longer own or lease.

If a car is shown on the Declarations Page under "YOUR CAR[,"] and you ask us to replace it with a car newly owned by you, then the car being replaced will continue to be considered your car until the earliest of:

1. the end of the 30th calendar day immediately following the date the car newly owned by you is delivered to you;

2. the date this policy is no longer in force; or

3. the date you no longer own or lease the car being replaced.

In the section pertaining to UIM, the policy booklet states:

If Other Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage Applies

1. The Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage provided by this policy applies as primary coverage for an insured who sustain[s] bodily injury or property damage while occupying your car.

2. Except as provided in item 1. above, the Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage provided by this policy applies as excess coverage.

3. If:

a. you or any resident relative sustains bodily injury or property damage:

(1) while occupying a motor vehicle not owned by you or any resident relative; or

(2) while not occupying a motor vehicle; and

b. Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage provided by this policy and one or more other vehicle policies issued to you or any resident relative by the State Farm Companies apply to the same bodily injury or property damage, then

the maximum amount that may be paid from all such policies combined is the single highest limit provided by any one of the policies. We may choose one or more policies from which to make payment.

4. If you or any resident relative sustains bodily injury or property damage while occupying a motor vehicle other than your car that is owned by you or any resident relative, then this coverage applies only to the extent of the underinsured motor vehicle coverage applicable to the motor vehicle that the insured was occupying .

However, if the motor vehicle that the insured was occupying was not insured for underinsured motor vehicle coverage at the time of the accident, then the maximum amount that may be paid from all policies combined that are issued to you or any resident relative by the State Farm Companies is the minimum limits required by the Financial Responsibility Act. We may choose one or more policies from which to make payment.

5. Subject to items l., 2., 3., and 4. above, if this policy and one or more other sources provide underinsured motor vehicle coverage for the same damages on a:

a. primary basis, then we will pay the proportion of damages payable as primary that the applicable limit of this coverage under this policy bears to the sum of such amount and the limits of all other underinsured motor vehicle coverage that apply as primary coverage; or

b. excess basis, then we will pay the proportion of damages payable as excess that the applicable limit of this coverage under this policy bears to the sum of such amount and the limits of all other underinsured motor vehicle coverage that apply as excess coverage.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing on the motions, the circuit court issued an order granting State Farm's motion and denying Windham's. The court found:

In order for stacking to be allowed under the Policies, Windham must be operating a car that is "owned by" an insured. She has stipulated that she did not own it, it was not registered to her[,] and she was not leasing it for a period of more than 31 days. Therefore, the rental car does not meet the definition of "owned by[,"] and Windham is not permitted to stack under the terms of the UIM coverage.

This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite the disposition of cases not requiring the services of a fact finder. George v. Fabri , 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001). When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, this court applies the same standard that governs the circuit court under Rule 56(c), SCRCP ; summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fleming v. Rose , 350 S.C. 488, 493, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002). In determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sauner v. Pub. Serv. Auth. of S.C. , 354 S.C. 397, 404, 581 S.E.2d 161, 165 (2003).

In Bell v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co. , 407 S.C. 565, 570, 572, 576, 757 S.E.2d...