Hastings concluded that to make a meaningful offer: (1) the insurer's notification process must be commercially reasonable, whether oral or in writing (2) the insurer must specify the limits of optional coverage and not merely offer additional coverage in general terms (3) the insurer must intelligibly advise the insured of the nature of the optional coverage and how it differs from other coverages and (4) the insurer must tell the insured that optional coverages are available for an additional stated premium. To determine whether an insurer has complied with the statutory mandate, the Court adopted the test formulated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Hastings v. (2d) 555, 556 (1987), the Supreme Court held that Section 56-9-831, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended, requires an insurance carrier (1) to offer its insured underinsured motorist coverage up to the limits of the insured's liability coverage (2) to effectively transmit this offer to the insured (3) to give the insured the option of accepting or rejecting the offer and (4) to provide the insured with adequate information, and in *153 such a manner, as to allow the insured to make an intelligent decision of whether to accept or reject the coverage. State Farm denied Dewart's claim on the ground that it made a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist coverage to Dewart, but she chose not to take the coverage when she renewed her policy. Since her actual damages exceeded the amount of the at fault driver's insurance, Dewart then made a claim for underinsured motorist benefits under her own policy with State Farm. After the accident, Dewart received a tender of the available liability limit on the at fault driver's insurance policy. On May 9, 1985, while she was a passenger in the automobile of another, Dewart suffered extensive injuries in a collision. Her husband did, however, read the premium renewal notice. Neither she nor her husband, who actually made the premium payment, read the insert. Dewart did not add underinsured motorist coverage to her policy when she renewed it. Offer of Coverage U, Coverage W." This insert also purported to explain underinsured motorist coverage and to offer it to the insured. Included with the notice was a separate three page insert entitled "Important Information. In November, 1984, State Farm sent Dewart a premium renewal notice. In August, 1984, State Farm mailed to all of its policyholders in South Carolina a nine page booklet entitled "Important Information about Coverages U and W." This booklet purported to explain underinsured motorist coverage and to offer it to the insured. Dewart paid no additional premium for underinsured motorist coverage and her policy did not include it. She did not speak to the agent about her coverage. The insurance application she signed contained no explanation of underinsured motorist coverage. In May, 1984, Dewart purchased automobile liability insurance for her Volkswagen automobile from a State Farm *152 agent. That statute required automobile insurance carriers to offer their insureds optional underinsured motorist coverage up to the limits of insured liability coverage. 569, Acts and Joint Resolutions of the General Assembly of South Carolina, Regular Session, 1978, 60 Stat. Dewart seeks to include underinsured motorist coverage in her written contract of insurance with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as a remedy for State Farm's alleged failure to comply with Section 1, Act No. This is an action in equity for reformation of an insurance contract. Spencer King of King, Cothran & Hray, Spartanburg, for respondent. Harris of Faucette, Haselden & Harris, Spartanburg, for appellant. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |