Legal Opinion

Traynum v. Scavens

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 20, 2016No. Appellate Case 2013-002797; 27629PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kittredge

Loretta Traynum and Leonard Traynum (collectively, Appellants) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondent Progressive Direct Insurance Co. (Progressive), arguing the trial court incorrectly held that Progressive made a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage via its website. We affirm.

I

In April 2007, Loretta Traynum (Traynum) purchased an automobile insurance policy from Progressive through Progressive’s website. Instead of selecting one of the preset packages Progressive offered, all of which contained UIM coverage by default, Traynum created a custom…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. TNS Mills, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of RevenueSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wannamaker Ex Rel. Estate of WannamakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
  3. Brockbank v. Best Capital Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  4. Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. Quail Hill, LLC v. County of RichlandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Beatty v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 2018
  2. Nikki Oliver, as Parent, Legal Guardian, and Next Friend of H.J., a minor, and Philip Journagan v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2026
  3. Progressive Direct v. Shanna GrovesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2022
  4. Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Daniel GeoffreyDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API