Legal Opinion

Pustaver v. Gooden

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided June 27, 2002No. 3529PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOWARD, Judge:

Theressa Pustaver obtained a judgment against Darrell Gooden arising from injuries sustained in an automobile accident. This judgment exceeded Gooden’s liability insurance coverage limits, and Gooden attempted to claim a set-off in the amount of Pustaver’s underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits. The trial court determined the UIM coverage was subject to the collateral source rule and, therefore, Gooden was not entitled to a set-off. Gooden appeals. We affirm.

FACTS

Pustaver and Gooden were involved in an .automobile accident in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Pustaver brought…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dixon v. Besco Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995
  2. Estate of Rattenni Ex Rel. Rattenni v. GraingerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
  3. W.B. Easton Construction Co. v. GregorySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  4. Haselden v. DavisCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2000
  5. Collins Ex Rel. Collins v. Bisson Moving & Storage, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Covington v. GeorgeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2004
  2. Schwartz v. HastyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2005
  3. Parker v. Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer DistrictCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API