Evans v. Wabash Life Insurance

148 S.E.2d 153, 247 S.C. 464, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 280
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedApril 25, 1966
Docket18493
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 148 S.E.2d 153 (Evans v. Wabash Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Evans v. Wabash Life Insurance, 148 S.E.2d 153, 247 S.C. 464, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 280 (S.C. 1966).

Opinion

Brailsford, Justice.

This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $900.00 actual damages and $3600.00 punitive damages in an action for the alleged breach of an insurance *466 contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s testimony, the defendant insurance company moved to strike from the complaint the allegations relating to fraud and punitive damages upon the ground that plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish fraud. This motion was overruled, and the defendant presented the testimony of three witnesses. Upon the conclusion of all of the testimony, the defendant did not renew its motion to strike and did not move for a directed verdict or for an instruction to the jury eliminating punitive damages.

This appeal is upon three exceptions, all of which rest upon the claimed insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The failure of a defendant to move for a nonsuit or directed verdict at the trial precludes a challenge in this court to the sufficiency of the evidence. Marthers v. Hurst, 226 S. C. 621, 86 S. E. (2d) 581; Circuit Court Rule 76 and decisions cited in footnotes. It does not better defendant’s situation to regard its motion to strike as equivalent to a motion for nonsuit. When the defendant presented evidence, it lost the opportunity to have the court’s refusal of its motion reviewed in the light of plaintiff’s evidence alone. Williamson v. Charleston and W. C. R. Co., 222 S. C. 455, 73 S. E. (2d) 537; Guthke v. Morris, 242 S. C. 56, 62, 129 S. E. (2d) 732, 735. An appropriate motion in the trial court after all of the evidence is in is necessary to preserve an issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence for review by this court.

Appeal dismissed.

Moss, Acting C. J., Lewis and Bussey, JJ., and Legge, Acting J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Redden
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008
Squirewell Builders v. Frederick
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006
State v. Harry
468 S.E.2d 76 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1996)
Freeman v. A. & M. Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
359 S.E.2d 532 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1987)
Peay v. Ross
357 S.E.2d 482 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1987)
Lites v. Taylor
326 S.E.2d 173 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1985)
Barber v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
231 S.E.2d 295 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1977)
Epting v. Brumble
212 S.E.2d 711 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1975)
Stevens v. McGaha
170 S.E.2d 758 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 S.E.2d 153, 247 S.C. 464, 1966 S.C. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-wabash-life-insurance-sc-1966.