Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bradley v. Doe

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided July 6, 2007No. 4274Published

1DissentShort, J.

I would reverse the order granting summary judgement and for that reason, I respectfully dissent. I adopt the majority’s facts and standard of review, but I disagree with the analysis and would find as follows.

Section 38-77-170 of the South Carolina Code dictates the “conditions to sue or recover under uninsured motorist provision when owner or operator of motor vehicle causing injury or damage is unknown” and states:

If the owner or operator of any motor vehicle which causes bodily injury or property damage to the insured is unknown, there is no right of action or recovery under the uninsured…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. HowserSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  2. Burns v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
  3. Wynn Ex Rel. Wynn v. DoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1971
  4. Davis v. DoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1985
  5. Shealy v. DoeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2006

4 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