White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2141
| Decision Date | 03 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 2141,2141 |
| Citation | 442 S.E.2d 195,314 S.C. 167 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Sarah J. WHITE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Randall E. White, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
Melvin L. Roberts and Ivan N. Walters, Melvin L. Roberts & Associates, York, for appellant.
John S. Wilkerson, III, and Michael S. Hopewell, Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Florence, for respondent.
Sarah J. White, as personal representative of the estate of Randall E. White, appeals from a ruling that Allstate Insurance Company made a valid offer of underinsured (UIM) motorist coverage to Randall White. We reverse and remand.
In 1988, Randall White bought a liability policy covering two vehicles. Allstate claims that when White renewed the policy, it mailed a renewal declaration sheet and billing notice. On the face of the declaration sheet was the following language:
UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS INSURANCE LIMITS EQUAL TO YOUR BODILY INJURY LIABILITY LIMITS ARE OFFERED TO YOU AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES:
VEH 1 $6.50
VEH 2 $6.50
SEE THE ENCLOSED INSERT DESCRIBING THESE OFFERS AND HOW TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THEM OR OBTAIN OTHER AVAILABLE LIMITS. 1
Allstate contends that accompanying the declaration sheet and renewal package was a form which further explained UIM coverage.
In 1989, Randall White purchased an additional policy from Allstate for a motorcycle. In conjunction with the issuance of that policy, Allstate mailed White a declaration sheet with similar language to that contained on the renewal declaration sheet quoted above. Allstate again contends this mailing included the insert. The personal representative denies the insert was included in either package.
Both of the policies at issue were minimum limits policies. Although the parties disagree as to whether the insert was included in the mailings, it is undisputed that if the insert was received by White, the offer of UIM coverage was offered only for the amount of coverage of the minimum liability limits of the policy.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Allstate was required to offer UIM coverage below the minimum liability limits. We hold they must, and therefore, their offer was invalid as a matter of law.
Section 38-77-160 mandates the offering of UIM motorist coverage as follows:
[Automobile insurance] carriers shall ... offer at the option of the insured, underinsured motorist coverage up to the limits of the insured liability coverage to provide coverage in the event that damages are sustained in excess of the liability limits carried by an at fault insured or underinsured motorist.
S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (1989).
In construing a statute, the statute must be read as a whole. Busby v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 280 S.C. 330, 312 S.E.2d 716 (Ct.App.1984). In addition, this Court's function is to determine and give effect to the intention of the legislature based upon the wording of the statute itself. Holman v. Bulldog Trucking Co., --- S.C. ----, 428 S.E.2d 889 (Ct.App.1993).
Section 38-77-140 mandates that automobile insurance carriers offer coverage of not less than 15/30/5. S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-140 (1989). In addition, carriers must offer minimal limits of uninsured (UM) coverage of not less than 15/30/5. S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-150 (1989). 2 The statutory provision for UIM coverage, however, is devoid of any minimum offer requirement.
Although UIM coverage may be distinguished from liability and UM coverage because UIM coverage is not mandated by statute, it seems clear that had the legislature intended there to be a minimum offer requirement for UIM coverage it would have done so. In addition, the clear and unambiguous language of the statute requires UIM coverage to be offered up to the limits of the insured's liability coverage.
Our construction of section 38-77-160 is also supported by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute under similar facts. In Hanover Ins. Co. v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 301 S.C. 55, 56, 389 S.E.2d 657, 658 (1990), the Court stated:
S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (1989) provides that an automobile insurance carrier must offer, at the option of the insured, underinsured motorist coverage "up to the limits of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 2:94-1418-18.
...291 S.C. 518, 354 S.E.2d 555 (1987); Garris v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 280 S.C. 149, 311 S.E.2d 723 (1984); White v. Allstate Ins. Co., ___ S.C. ___, 442 S.E.2d 195 (S.C.Ct.App. 1994); Mathis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., ___ S.C. ___, 431 S.E.2d 619 (S.C.Ct. App.1993) American Sec. Ins. ......
-
Antley v. Nobel Ins. Co.
...331 S.C. 437, 503 S.E.2d 211 (Ct.App. 1998),rev'd on other grounds,339 S.C. 362, 529 S.E.2d 280 (2000); White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 314 S.C. 167, 442 S.E.2d 195 (Ct.App.1994). The governing statute expressly (A) No automobile insurance policy or contract may be issued or delivered unless it......
-
Butler v. Unisun Ins. Co.
...additional premium the insured must pay for UIM coverage at the specified limits. That Court further held in White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 314 S.C. 167, 442 S.E.2d 195 (Ct.App.1994) that an offer of UIM was invalid, because it failed to offer coverage below the minimum liability Decisions hav......
-
Osborne v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...of the liability limits carried by an at fault insured or underinsured motorist.... 2 In the recent case of White v. Allstate Ins. Co., 314 S.C. 167, 442 S.E.2d 195 (Ct.App.1994), cert. denied, November 3, 1994, this Court Section 38-77-140 mandates that automobile insurance carriers offer ......