Legal Opinion · Dissent

M AND M CORP. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided October 11, 2010No. 26883Published

1Dissent

*262Justice PLEICONES.

I respectfully dissent. I believe that the water which damaged Plaintiffs property constituted “surface water” under longstanding South Carolina law. Accordingly, I would answer the first question “yes” and, as the answer disposes of the coverage issue, decline to answer the second and third questions.

A. Surface Waters and Water Courses

Typically, where a term is not defined in an insurance policy, a court must define the term according to the usual understanding of the term’s significance to the ordinary person. See South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Durham, 380…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Blakeley v. RabonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  2. Silvester v. Spring Valley Country ClubCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
  3. Fuller-Ahrens Partnership v. S.C. Deparment of Highways & Public TransportationCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1993
  4. Lawton v. South Bound R. R.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1901
  5. Reith v. McGill Smith Punshon, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005

6 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