Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bower v. National General Insurance

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided July 31, 2000No. 3234Published

1DissentGoolsby, Judge

■ I believe Bower failed to show the trial court committed reversible error in holding the offer of underinsured (UIM) coverage at issue here was legally sufficient.

Under South Carolina Code section 38-77-160, automobile insurers must offer, at the insured’s option, UIM coverage “up to the limits of the insured liability coverage.1 The form to be used in offering such coverage must include, among other things, “a list of available limits and the range of premiums for the limits.”2

Our supreme court has adopted the following criteria for determining whether an insurer has made a meaningful…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wannamaker Ex Rel. Estate of WannamakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
  2. Noisette v. IsmailSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
  3. Yarborough v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  4. Dewart v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1988
  5. Wilkes v. FreemanCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1999

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API