Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Erwood

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 9, 2007No. 26305Published

1Dissent

BURNETT, J.:

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, - it is unnecessary to address either S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (2002) or the personal and portable nature of UM coverage for the language of the insurance contract itself provides no coverage for Erwood.

The construction of an agreement is a matter of contract law. McDuffie v. McDuffie, 313 S.C. 397, 399, 438 S.E.2d 239, 241 (1993). The primary objective in construing a contract is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties. Williams v. Teran, Inc., 266 S.C. 55, 59, 221 S.E.2d 526, 528 (1976). The Court must first look at…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. C.A.N. Enterprises, Inc. v. South Carolina Health & Human Services Finance CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1988
  2. Blakeley v. RabonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  3. Torrington Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1975
  4. Superior Automobile Insurance v. ManersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1973
  5. Williams v. Teran, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1976

2 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