Legal Opinion
Smith v. South Carolina Insurance
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided May 13, 2002No. 3492PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, J.
Appellant Eric A. Smith brought this declaratory judgment action seeking reformation of an insurance policy issued to Roosevelt Ladson, alleging the insurer failed to make a new offer of underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage when a second vehicle was added to the policy. The Circuit Court denied the request for reformation, finding an insurer is not required to make a new offer of UIM coverage when an insured adds additional vehicles to an existing policy. We affirm.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This action arises out of an automobile accident in which Smith was injured while riding as a…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Tupper v. Dorchester CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
- Hitachi Data Systems Corp. v. LeathermanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wannamaker Ex Rel. Estate of WannamakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
- Summer v. CarpenterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
- Burns v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. South Carolina Second Injury FundCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2005
- Redwend Ltd. Partnership v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2003
- Bass v. IsochemCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2005
- Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2005
- State v. SweatCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.