February 19, 2008
SOUTH CAROLINA Non-Owned Auto Coverage
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26407
The
South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the South Carolina Court of
Appeals and a trial court in determining that a named insured's son was
her dependent and, thus, his car was not a "non-owned auto" as defined
by the policy. In Coakley v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., a passenger who was
injured in a single-car accident claimed he was entitled to excess
liability coverage because the vehicle was owned by the son of the
named insured and qualified as a "non-owned auto" under other policies
issued to the named insured because the son was not an "insured." The
policy defined "insured" to include students away at school so long as
the student is a dependent of the named insured. The son was a college
student but the claimant argued, and the trial court and Court of
Appeals accepted, that the son was solely the dependent of his father
(the parents being divorced) because the father paid the majority of
his college expenses. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, citing
evidence that the named insured paid for her son's car insurance and
taxes, guaranteed his school apartment lease, paid for medical
expenses, kept a room for him and claimed him as a dependent on her
income tax returns. The court held that the decisions of the trial
court and Court of Appeals were wholly unsupported by the evidence and
reversed the $350,000 judgment in favor of the claimant.
Jennifer D. Eubanks
Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A.
Greenville, SC
|
