Legal Opinion
Brown v. Continental Insurance
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided July 12, 1993No. 23899PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Moore, Justice:
Appellants (the Browns) brought this declaratory judgment action to determine insurance coverage for injuries sustained by Mr. Brown in an automobile accident. We affirm.
FACTS
At the time Mr. Brown was injured, the Browns had an au tomobile insurance policy with respondent (Continental). Neither of the Browns’ two cars listed in the policy was involved in the wreck. The vehicle driven by the at-fault party was uninsured.
The Browns sought uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) benefits from Continental. Continental paid $100,000 in UM benefits and $100,000 in UIM benefits…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Garris v. Cincinnati InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1984
- South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. MooneyhamSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
- Jackson Ex Rel. Estate of Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
- Giles v. WhitakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
- Fireman's Ins. Co. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Continental Insurance v. ShivesCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1997
- Ruppe v. Auto-Owners InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- Carter v. Standard Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2013
- Ruppe ex rel. Estate of Ruppe v. Auto-Owners InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1996
- Houghtling v. Allstate Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2019
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.