Traynum v. Scavens
Decision Date | 20 April 2016 |
Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2013–002797.,No. 27629.,27629. |
Citation | 416 S.C. 197,786 S.E.2d 115 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Loretta TRAYNUM and Leonard Traynum, Appellants, v. Cynthia SCAVENS and Progressive Direct Insurance Co., Respondents. |
Blake A. Hewitt and John S. Nichols, both of Bluestein, Nichols, Thompson & Delgado, L.L.C., of Columbia, and Tom Young, Jr., of Law Offices of Tom Young, Jr., P.C., of Aiken, for appellants.
J.R. Murphy and Wesley B. Sawyer, both of Murphy & Grantland, P.A., of Columbia, for respondents.
David C. Marshall and R. Hawthorne Barrett, both of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, P.A., of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.
Loretta Traynum and Leonard Traynum (collectively, Appellants) appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Respondent Progressive Direct Insurance Co. (Progressive), arguing the trial court incorrectly held that Progressive made a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage via its website. We affirm.
In April 2007, Loretta Traynum (Traynum) purchased an automobile insurance policy from Progressive through Progressive's website. Instead of selecting one of the preset packages Progressive offered, all of which contained UIM coverage by default, Traynum created a custom package which did not include UIM coverage. Traynum also increased the preset deductibles for comprehensive and collision coverages. The result of these changes was a lower monthly premium. Traynum then electronically signed a form acknowledging Progressive offered her optional UIM coverage and that she rejected that coverage.
Thereafter, in November 2007, Traynum and Cynthia Scavens were involved in an automobile accident, from which Appellants claimed more than $175,000 in damages. Appellants brought claims against Scavens for negligence and loss of consortium, which were settled for $100,000, the limits of Scavens's liability coverage. As the settlement did not fully satisfy Appellants' damages, Appellants also brought a declaratory judgment action against Progressive claiming Progressive did not make a meaningful offer of UIM coverage to Traynum, as required by law, and asking the court to reform Traynum's policy to include UIM coverage in the amount of the policy's liability limits.1
Appellants and Progressive filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Progressive noted it made an offer of UIM coverage to Traynum on its website and Traynum electronically signed a form rejecting that offer, while Appellants argued the offer was insufficient and therefore Traynum's rejection of UIM coverage was ineffective. The trial court granted Progressive's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Progressive made a meaningful offer of UIM coverage to Traynum, which she knowingly rejected. Appellants contend this was error and ask this Court to reform Traynum's policy to include UIM coverage. We decline to do so.
“An appellate court reviews the granting of summary judgment under the same standard applied by the trial court....” Quail Hill, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Richland, 387 S.C. 223, 235, 692 S.E.2d 499, 505 (2010) (citing Brockbank v. Best Capital Corp., 341 S.C. 372, 379, 534 S.E.2d 688, 692 (2000) ). “[A] trial court may grant a motion for summary judgment ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Id. at 234, 692 S.E.2d at 505 (quoting Rule 56(c), SCRCP ).
Appellants' claim against Progressive is entirely predicated upon the allegation that Progressive's offer of UIM coverage was inadequate. When there is no factual dispute about its content or form, whether an offer of UIM coverage is sufficient is a question of law. See Wiegand v. U.S. Auto. Ass'n, 391 S.C. 159, 163, 705 S.E.2d 432, 434 (2011). “Appellate courts may decide questions of law with no particular deference to the [trial] court's findings.” Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Blackburn, 407 S.C. 321, 328, 755 S.E.2d 437, 441 (2014) (citing Verenes v. Alvanos, 387 S.C. 11, 15, 690 S.E.2d 771, 772–73 (2010) ).
Id. at 521, 354 S.E.2d at 556 (citing Hastings v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 318 N.W.2d 849 (Minn.1982) ). This amounts to a requirement that, to be valid, an offer of UIM coverage must be “a meaningful one.” Id. at 522, 354 S.E.2d at 557. “If the insurer fails to comply with its duty to make a meaningful offer, the policy will be reformed by operation of law to include UIM coverage up to the limits of liability insurance carried by the insured.” Ray v. Austin, 388 S.C. 605, 611, 698 S.E.2d 208, 212 (2010) (citing Butler v. Unisun Ins. Co., 323 S.C. 402, 405, 475 S.E.2d 758, 760 (1996) ).
Id. § 38–77–350(B) (emphasis added). Our precedents thus recognize that an insurer can establish it made a meaningful offer of UIM coverage by proving either it is entitled to the conclusive presumption of section 38–77–350(B) or it satisfied the requirements of Wannamaker. See, e.g., Ray, 388 S.C. at 612, 698 S.E.2d at 212 .
Appellants acknowledge they are not contesting the content of Progressive's offer of UIM coverage, but rather the method by which the offer was communicated to and rejected by Traynum through Progressive's website. Because the transaction occurred online, it is governed by South Carolina's version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (the UETA).2
Id. § 26–6–80(A) (2007). Moreover, the UETA endorses automated transactions between an “electronic agent”3 of a company and a consumer:
In an automated transaction:
Below, we analyze Appellants' arguments consistently with the purpose and provisions of the UETA.
Appellants contend the trial court erred in granting Progressive summary judgment because Progressive's website was confusing and not designed to effectively communicate the offer of UIM coverage to Traynum. Therefore, Appellants argue, Progressive was not entitled...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beaumont v. Branch
...a “signature must not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form”); see also Traynum v. Scavens, 786 S.E.2d 115, 120 (S.C. 2016). the court's initial conclusion that Beaumont has not identified a writing sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds for t......
-
Progressive Direct Insurance Co. v. Groves
...An appellate court reviews a motion for summary judgment using the same standard employed by the circuit court. Traynum v. Scavens , 416 S.C. 197, 201, 786 S.E.2d 115, 117 (2016). Whether coverage exists under an insurance contract is a question of law for the Court. Williams v. Gov't Emps.......
-
Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v. Corekin
...was an agreement to contract electronically constituted an agreement to conduct transactions electronically); Traynum v. Scavens, 786 S.E.2d 115, 120 (S.C. 2016), reh'g denied (June 17, 2016) ("Progressive's online communication of the offer of UIM coverage was effective because Traynum agr......
- State v. Phillips, Appellate Case No. 2015–000351.