All contracts of insurance on property, lives, or interests in this State are considered to be made in the State and all contracts of insurance the applications for which are taken within the State are considered to have been made within this State and are subject to the laws of this State.

SECTION 38-61-10 is not unconstitutional in providing that contracts of insurance on interests which are located in South Carolina are considered to be made in South Carolina and are subject to the laws of South Carolina, even where the contracts are executed outside of the state and between parties who are not citizens of the state, since insuring property, lives and interest in South Carolina constitutes a significant contact with the state. Sangamo Weston, Inc. v. National Sur. Corp. (S.C. 1992) 307 S.C. 143, 414 S.E.2d 127.

2. In general

Under South Carolina law, advertising injury coverage in general business liability policy did not apply to claims against insured for patent infringement; none of the covered categories of advertising injury could reasonably be construed as referring to infringement of patent rights. Sunex Intern., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., 2001, 185 F.Supp.2d 614.

Parties cannot contract contrary to the public policy of the state due to former Code 1962 Section 37-141, thus any part of a liability policy from an insurance company to an automobile dealer inconsistent with former Code 1962 Section 46-150.16 is void and the pertinent provisions of the statute prevail as much as if expressly incorporated in the policy (decided under former law). Security General Ins. Co. v. Bill Vernon Chevrolet, Inc. (D.C.S.C. 1967) 263 F.Supp. 74, affirmed 384 F.2d 1000.

South Carolina substantive law determined whether plaintiff is entitled to collect uninsured motorist benefits from insurer for accident occurring in Georgia but involving van licensed in South Carolina. Sanders v. Doe, 1993, 831 F.Supp. 886.

Former Code 1952 Section 37-141 was cited in Schafer v. Maryland Cas. Co., 1954, 123 F.Supp. 873.

Law of Virginia, where the automobile insurance policy was issued and the insured resided, rather than the law of South Carolina, where the accident occurred, applied to question whether the policy was in effect at the time of death. Gordon v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California (S.C.App. 2000) 342 S.C. 152, 536 S.E.2d 376, certiorari denied.

A contractual dispute between a car rental company and a renter resulting from an accident was governed by New York law even though the accident took place in another state where the agreement was executed in New York, by a resident of New York, with a corporation doing business in New York, the car was registered in New York, and the car rental company delivered the car to the renter in New York. Unisun Ins. Co. v. Hertz Rental Corp. (S.C.App. 1993) 312 S.C. 549, 436 S.E.2d 182, rehearing denied.

SECTION 38-61-10 was applicable to insurance contracts which were at issue in certain litigation, even though all of the contracts were executed outside of the state and between parties who were not citizens of the state, where the property which was the subject of the litigation was located within South Carolina; thus, under South Carolina conflict law, South Carolina substantive law governed the dispute. Sangamo Weston, Inc. v. National Sur. Corp. (S.C. 1992) 307 S.C. 143, 414 S.E.2d 127.

Public policy is clearly to effect that all contracts of insurance on subjects in Code 1962 Section 37-141 shall be deemed made in, and subject to insurance laws of this State (decided under former law). Johnston v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Acc. Ass'n of America (S.C. 1963) 242 S.C. 387, 131 S.E.2d 91.

Former Code 1962 Section 37-141 made all insurance contracts on property, lives and interest located in this State subject to Insurance Code of this State and was clearly attempt on part of legislature to regulate accident insurance (decided under former law). Johnston v. Commercial Travelers Mut. Acc. Ass'n of America (S.C. 1963) 242 S.C. 387, 131 S.E.2d 91.

3. Choice of law

North Carolina law applicable, under laws of both North Carolina and South Carolina [former Section 38-9-20], as to validity of insurance policy of insured who lived in North Carolina and made application for policy of life insurance in North Carolina with North Carolina insurance company (decided under former law). Ratliff v. Coastal Plain Life Ins. Co. (S.C. 1978) 270 S.C. 373, 242 S.E.2d 424.