Legal Opinion

Bolton v. Doe

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided March 11, 1976No. 20189PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ness, Justice:

Appellant seeks review of summary judgment entered in favor of the respondent. The lower court ruled that appellant was not entitled to coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of an automobile insurance policy due to his failure to comply with South Carolina Code § 46-750.34 (1975 -Cum. Supp.). We believe the appellant substantially met the requirements of the statute. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and remanded.

On March 10, 1972, the appellant was allegedly a passenger in a vehicle which was involved in a collision in the city of Columbia with an unknown vehicle.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Coker Ex Rel. Estate of Coker v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1968
  2. Criterion Insurance v. HoffmannSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1972
  3. Hotzel v. SimmonsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  4. McKay v. Highlands Insurance CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Pierce v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  2. Kinard v. Fleet Real Estate Funding Corp.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995
  3. William Gresham Representative of the Estate v. StringfellowCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2019
  4. Bolton v. DoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  5. Morehead v. DoeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API