728 S.E.2d 477
S.C.2012Background
- Rhoden and her daughters were in an accident in Arrieta’s car; Arrieta’s policy had no UIM coverage; Rhoden owned two vehicles insured by Nationwide with UIM, including a portability clause (3b) that makes coverage excess when the involved vehicle isn’t the insured vehicle.
- Nationwide sought a declaratory judgment that UIM coverage did not extend to any Respondents under Rhoden’s policy due to the portability clause.
- Trial court held UIM coverage under Rhoden’s policy is personal and portable and available to all Respondents.
- Court of Appeals affirmed for Rhoden and Dickey but not Arrieta, recognizing public policy favors portability for non-owners but not owners.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the portability clause offends public policy when importing UIM from an at-home vehicle’s policy in cases involving resident relatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does portability limit UIM by non-owners violate public policy? | Nationwide: 3(b) controls; no importation possible. | Rhoden and Dickey: UIM is personal and portable; public policy requires importation. | Yes; UIM is personal and portable for Rhoden and Dickey. |
| Does Burgess public policy support portability for non-owners? | Public policy allows owners to limit portability; others not protected. | Policy should extend portability to resident relatives. | Public policy supports portability for non-owners in this context. |
| Should Arrieta be denied UIM under Rhoden’s policy due to 3(b)? | Arrieta’s vehicle lacked UIM; cannot import. | Policy allows import for non-owners like Rhoden and Dickey. | Arrieta not entitled; 3(b) applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 373 S.C. 37 (2007) (UIM portability/policy limits in non-stacking context; public policy favors portability for insureds)
- Hogan v. Home Insurance Co., 260 S.C. 157 (1973) (UIM portability is broad as required by statute)
- Mooneyham v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 304 S.C. 442 (1991) (interprets § 38-77-160; stacking context distinctions)
- Concrete Services, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty, 331 S.C. 506 (1998) (discusses interpretation of § 38-77-160 in stacking vs non-stacking)