Trancik v. USAA INS. CO, No. 3644.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | HOWARD, J. |
| Citation | 581 S.E.2d 858,354 S.C. 549 |
| Parties | Thomas TRANCIK, M.D., P.A., Appellant, v. USAA INSURANCE COMPANY & Rosemary Wiggs, Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 3644. |
| Decision Date | 27 May 2003 |
354 S.C. 549
581 S.E.2d 858
v.
USAA INSURANCE COMPANY & Rosemary Wiggs, Respondents
No. 3644.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard February 13, 2003.
Decided May 27, 2003.
HOWARD, J.:
Thomas Trancik, M.D., P.A. ("Trancik")1 brought this action for breach of contract and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), alleging USAA Insurance Company ("USAA") failed to honor an assignment of settlement proceeds executed by his patient, Rosemary Wiggs, in connection with medical treatment she received following a motor-vehicle collision with USAA's insured. The trial court dismissed the suit, ruling Trancik failed to state a claim for relief because no contractual privity with USAA existed. We affirm.
FACTS
Trancik performed surgery on Wiggs for injuries she received in an automobile accident. Prior to surgery, Wiggs executed an assignment, which states in relevant part:
I Rose Mary Wiggs, hereby guarantee payment of all charges incurred ... and hereby assign any medical insurance... or settlement proceeds due because of liability of a third party by any party, organization or insurance company....
...
In the event the undersigned is entitled to physician or physicians benefits of any type whatsoever arising out of any policy of insurance insuring the patient or any party liable to patient, said benefits are hereby assigned to Physician for application on patient's bill, and it is agreed that the Physician may receipt for any such payment and such payment shall discharge the said insurance company of any and all obligations under the policy to the extent of such payment, the undersigned and/or patient being responsible for charges not covered by this assignment.
Subsequently, Wiggs sued the at-fault driver, who referred the matter to her insurance carrier, USAA. Trancik sent the
Trancik brought this suit against USAA, claiming the payment of settlement proceeds directly to Wiggs breached the assignment contract and violated the UTPA. The trial court dismissed both causes of action. Trancik appeals the dismissal of his breach of contract claim, arguing the trial court improperly concluded he lacked contractual privity with USAA. We affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court must dismiss a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, if the pleadings, when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. See Woodell ex rel. Allen v. Marion Sch. Dist. One, 307 S.C. 297, 298, 414 S.E.2d 794, 794 (Ct.App.1992). However, the motion cannot be granted if the facts, and their reasonable inferences, demonstrate the plaintiff could prevail on a theory of the case. See Brown v. Leverette, 291 S.C. 364, 366, 353 S.E.2d 697, 698 (1987).
LAW/ANALYSIS
Trancik argues the trial court erred by granting USAA's motion to dismiss. He contends contractual privity existed between Trancik and USAA by virtue of the assignment contract. We disagree.
According to the complaint, two contracts existed: the insurance contract between USAA and the at-fault driver and an assignment contract between Wiggs and Trancik. Trancik's complaint alleges USAA breached the assignment contract because Wiggs assigned her right to the insurance proceeds to him, USAA had notice of the assignment, and USAA failed to pay the insurance proceeds directly to him.
Trancik argues USAA's receipt of the assignment contract was sufficient to create contractual privity with USAA, citing Gray v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 327 S.C. 646, 491 S.E.2d
In Gray, two chiropractors obtained assignments from patients stating any money collected from the patients' insurance carriers was assigned to the chiropractors. The assignments did not include claims against third-party carriers. The chiropractors sent these assignments to third-party-insurance companies, which refused to honor them. As in this case, the patients failed to pay the chiropractors, and the chiropractors sued the third-party-insurance companies, claiming they breached the assignment contract between the chiropractors and their patients.
This Court ruled no contractual privity existed between the chiropractors and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. Bromell, Civil Action No.: 5:16-cv-02888-JMC
...a third-party who is not a party to an insurance contract, cannot sue an insurer to enforce the contract. See Trancik v. USAA Ins. Co., 581 S.E.2d 858, 861 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003) (a third-party who is not a party to a contract cannot bring suit for breach of contract). However, section 1981 i......
-
Fluke Corp. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 64408-4-I
...(1962) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [41] Fluke, 2009 WL 376801, at *3. [42] Id. at *6. [43] Trancik v. USAA Ins. Co., 354 S.C. 549, 555, 581 S.E.2d 858 (2003) (citing Singletary v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 316 S.C. 199, 201, 447 S.E.2d 869 (1994) (holding an "assignee . .......
-
Fluke Corp. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 64408-4-I
...636 (1962) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 41. Fluke, 2009 WL 376801, at *3. 42. Id. at *6. 43.Trancik v. USAA Ins. Co., 354 S.C. 549, 555, 581 S.E.2d 858 (2003) (citing Singletary v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 316 S.C. 199, 201, 447 S.E.2d 869 (1994) (holding an "assignee . .......
-
Ctr. for Legal Reform, Non-Profit Corp. v. Rakowsky, C/A No. 3:14-cv-01674-JFA
...law carries a presumption that an individual who is not a party to a contract lacks privity to enforce it." Trancik v. USAA Ins. Co., 354 S.C. 549, 553-54, 581 S.E.2d 858, 861 (Ct. App. 2003) (citing Touchberry v. City of Florence, 295 S.C. 47, 48-49, 367 S.E.2d 149, 150 (1988)). "Generally......
-
Garrett v. Bromell, Civil Action No.: 5:16-cv-02888-JMC
...a third-party who is not a party to an insurance contract, cannot sue an insurer to enforce the contract. See Trancik v. USAA Ins. Co., 581 S.E.2d 858, 861 (S.C. Ct. App. 2003) (a third-party who is not a party to a contract cannot bring suit for breach of contract). However, section 1981 i......
-
Fluke Corp. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 64408-4-I
...(1962) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). [41] Fluke, 2009 WL 376801, at *3. [42] Id. at *6. [43] Trancik v. USAA Ins. Co., 354 S.C. 549, 555, 581 S.E.2d 858 (2003) (citing Singletary v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 316 S.C. 199, 201, 447 S.E.2d 869 (1994) (holding an "assignee . .......
-
Fluke Corp. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., No. 64408-4-I
...636 (1962) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 41. Fluke, 2009 WL 376801, at *3. 42. Id. at *6. 43.Trancik v. USAA Ins. Co., 354 S.C. 549, 555, 581 S.E.2d 858 (2003) (citing Singletary v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 316 S.C. 199, 201, 447 S.E.2d 869 (1994) (holding an "assignee . .......
-
Ctr. for Legal Reform, Non-Profit Corp. v. Rakowsky, C/A No. 3:14-cv-01674-JFA
...law carries a presumption that an individual who is not a party to a contract lacks privity to enforce it." Trancik v. USAA Ins. Co., 354 S.C. 549, 553-54, 581 S.E.2d 858, 861 (Ct. App. 2003) (citing Touchberry v. City of Florence, 295 S.C. 47, 48-49, 367 S.E.2d 149, 150 (1988)). "Generally......