Legal Opinion

O'NEILL v. Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 14, 2010No. 26826PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Beatty

The question certified to this Court asks whether it would violate South Carolina’s public policy for a plaintiff to seek an award of punitive damages in a tort action after signing a covenant not to execute against a defendant. We answer in the negative, holding it does not violate public policy because punitive damages serve additional purposes beyond merely punishing a specific individual, and the public policy as expressed in S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-30(4) (2002) is to compensate the injured insured, not his insurer, and requires only that damages exceed the liability insurance limits of an…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Clark v. CantrellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  2. Rogers Ex Rel. Rogers v. Florence Printing Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1958
  3. Stinbrink v. Farmers Ins. Co. of ArizonaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Sloan Ex Rel. State v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  5. Floyd v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. KennedySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2012
  2. Gause v. SmithersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2013
  3. Government Employees Insurance Company v. PooleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API