Lincoln General Insurance v. Progressive Northern Insurance
753 S.E.2d 437
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Jennifer Strickland held a Progressive liability policy with a named-driver exclusion for Avery Strickland.
- Avery, driving Jennifer’s car, caused an accident with Jose Salgado’s vehicle; Avery was at fault.
- Progressive denied coverage under the named-driver exclusion; Lincoln General paid uninsured motorist benefits to Salgado’s occupants.
- Respondents filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Progressive must provide minimum MVFRA limits.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Lincoln General; Progressive appeals.
- The court reverses, holding the MVFRA does not require minimum limits where a statutorily authorized named-driver exclusion applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVFRA requires minimum limits despite a named-driver exclusion. | Lincoln General contends MVFRA imposes absolute coverage. | Progressive argues named-driver exclusion is statutorily authorized and not contrary to MVFRA. | No; MVFRA does not require minimum limits under a valid named-driver exclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. N. River Ins. Co., 288 S.C. 374 (Ct.App.1986) (exclusion for employee liability consistent with MVFRA provisions)
- Barlow, 301 S.C. 502 (Ct.App.1990) (named-driver endorsement not inhibited when consistent with policy)
- Shores v. Weaver, 315 S.C. 347 (Ct.App.1993) (minimum coverage policy analysis under MVFRA)
- Parker, 282 S.C. 546 (Ct.App.1984) (minimum liability coverage; not all exclusions allowed)
- Markosky v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 340 S.C. 223 (Ct.App.2000) (MVFRA uniform construction; notice issue not controlling)