Legal Opinion

Wright v. Smallwood

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 8, 1992No. 23669PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Chandler, Justice:

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) appeals an Order holding that Respondent City of Columbia (City) is not required to provide uninsured motorist (UM) coverage on its vehicles.

We reverse.

FACTS

Stanley Wright (Wright), an employee of City, while driving a City vehicle, was involved in an auto accident with the defendant, Laura Smallwood (Smallwood), an uninsured motorist. He received Workers’ Compensation benefits from City, a self-insurer for both Workers’ Compensation and automobile liability. In a third-party suit against Smallwood, Wright obtained…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mathis v. Interstate Motor Freight SystemMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Christy v. City of NewarkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1986
  3. Southern Home Insurance v. Burdette's Leasing Service, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1977
  4. William v. City of Newport NewsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1990
  5. Heavens v. Laclede Gas Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1988

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Charleston County School District v. State Budget & Control BoardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  2. Colwell v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 2003
  3. Berger v. H.P. Hood, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1993
  4. McSorley v. Hertz Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
  5. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. BangSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994

15 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