United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Litchfield
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
1DissentHuff, J.
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion affirming the trial court’s decision. The trial court granted USAA’s motion for summary judgment. The Litchfields appeal. I believe the main issue on appeal concerns whether USAA made a valid offer of UIM coverage. I would hold that USAA did not make a valid offer and reverse the trial court’s ruling.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In light of the fact that a determination as to the existence of a valid offer is critical to this case I find it necessary to provide a separate factual statement. In July 1997, USAA issued an…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wannamaker Ex Rel. Estate of WannamakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
- Butler v. Unisun InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
- Hanover Insurance v. Horace Mann InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
- Dewart v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1988
- Ackerman v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.