Farmland Mutual Insurance v. Jim Moore Cadillac-Oldsmobile, Inc.

320 S.E.2d 719, 283 S.C. 33, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 554
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedSeptember 14, 1984
Docket0268
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 320 S.E.2d 719 (Farmland Mutual Insurance v. Jim Moore Cadillac-Oldsmobile, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farmland Mutual Insurance v. Jim Moore Cadillac-Oldsmobile, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 719, 283 S.C. 33, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 554 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Cureton, Judge:

This appeal presents the question whether the South Carolina Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act (S. C. Code Ann. Section 56-9-10 et seq. (1976)) permits the exclusion of liability insurance coverage to a permissive user of the insured automobile when the user is employed in the automobile business at the time of the accident. The circuit court held that such an exclusion violated the statute. We affirm.

The stipulated facts reveal the following. Eugene Eshelman and his wife sued Ronnie Wilson for damages for their personal injuries and property loss arising out of an automobile accident involving Eshelman and Wilson. At the time of the collision, Wilson was driving a car owned by Jim Moore Cadillac-Oldsmobile and leased to Leonard Springs. Wilson, an employee of an automobile cleaning and maintenance business, was driving the car with the permission of Springs and within the scope of his employment. Wilson’s employer had no liability insurance. „

Farmland Mutual Insurance Company, Eshelman’s insurer, instituted this action to determine whether the liability policy issued by Aetna Casualty & Surety Company to Springs with Jim Moore Cadillac-Oldsmobile as an additional insured provided coverage to Wilson. The circuit court held that the policy covered Wilson and ordered Aetna to defend the action. Aetna appealed.

The family automobile liability policy issued by Aetna to Springs contained an exclusion which Aetna asserts in bar of coverage. The exclusion provides: “This policy does apply under the liability coverage... to an owned automobile while used by any person while such person is employed or otherwise engaged in the automobile business.” The parties stipulated that Wilson was employed in “the automobile business.” Aetna argues that the exclusion is valid and relies on several cases including Stanley v. Reserve Insurance Co., 238 S. C. 533, 121 S. E. (2d) 10 (1961), American Fire & Casualty Co. v. [35]*35Surety Indemnity Co., 246 S. C. 220, 143 S. E. (2d) 371 (1965), and Heaton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 278 F. Supp. 725 (D.S.C. 1968).

Recently, we had occasion to discuss each of these cases in Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Co. v. Parker, 320 S. E. (2d) 458 (S. C. App. 1984). For reasons more fully addressed in Pennsylvania National we find each of the cases distinguishable from this case, either on the facts presented or the issues raised.

It seems clear to us that the exclusion asserted by Aetna conflicts with Section 56-9-820 of the South Carolina Code of Laws of 19761 because it fails to insure against Wilson’s losses although he is an “insured” pursuant to Section 56-9-810(2).2 Aetna’s attempt to exclude coverage to those engaged in the automobile business is an impermissible attempt to re-define the term “insured” to narrow the coverage required by the statute. American Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Southland Motors, Inc., 279 S. C. 101, 302 S. E. (2d) 854 (1983); Jordan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 264 S. C. 294, 214 S. E. (2d) 818 (1975); Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Parker, supra.

We hold that the exclusion asserted by Aetna is void and therefore, the order of the circuit court that Aetna provide coverage is

Affirmed.

Sháw and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Smith
757 N.E.2d 881 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2001)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fisher
735 N.E.2d 747 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2000)
Distler v. Reuther Jeep Eagle
14 S.W.3d 179 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)
Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co.
669 A.2d 45 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1995)
Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. JIM MOORE CAD.-OLDS.
320 S.E.2d 719 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
320 S.E.2d 719, 283 S.C. 33, 1984 S.C. App. LEXIS 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmland-mutual-insurance-v-jim-moore-cadillac-oldsmobile-inc-scctapp-1984.