32:T544,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Falkosky v. Allstate Insurance Company, 312 S.C. 210","datePublished":"1993-12-20","legislationDate":"1993-12-20","citation":"Falkosky v. Allstate Insurance Company, 312 S.C. 210 (S.C. 1993)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","description":"Read the full text of Falkosky v. Allstate Insurance Company (Falkosky v. Allstate Insurance Company, 312 S.C. 210 (S.C. 1993)). This legal opinion, filed in 1993-12-20, from the Supreme Court of South Carolina discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/falkosky-v-allstate-insurance-company--1301788"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/falkosky-v-allstate-insurance-company--1301788","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Falkosky v. Allstate Insurance Company, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Falkosky v. Allstate Insurance Company, 312 S.C. 210 (S.C. 1993)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T446,

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Per Curiam:

Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in Falkosky v. Allstate Insurance Company, — S.C. —, 429 S.E. (2d) 194 (Ct. App. 1993). We grant the writ as to Question I, deny the writ as to Question II, dispense with further briefing and affirm as modified.

This case involves the construction of an exclusion in a homeowner’s insurance policy. In reaching its conclusion that the exclusion prevents coverage in this case, the Court of Appeals relied on the standard established in McPherson v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., — S.C. —, 426 S.E. (2d) 770 (1993).

However, even if the correct standard is applied, the exclusion prevents coverage in this case. Accordingly, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed as modified.