Omni Insurance Group v. Tidwell

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Omni Insurance Group, Appellant,
v.
La'Rissa Tidwell and Bristol West Insurance Company,
Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2012-211567
Appeal from Richland County
DeAndrea G. Benjamin, Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-021
Heard June 4, 2013 – Filed June 12, 2013
AFFIRMED
Douglas E. Leadbitter, of Douglas E. Leadbitter, LLC, of
Blythewood, for Appellant.
John S. Nichols, of Bluestein, Nichols, Thompson, &
Delgado, LLC, of Columbia, and Melissa G. Mosier, of
McWhirter, Bellinger, & Associates, PA, of Lexington;
Charles O. Williams, III, and Weston Adams, III, of
McAngus, Goudelock, & Courie, LLC, of Columbia, and
Helen F. Hiser, of McAngus, Goudelock, & Courie,
LLC, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondents.
Frank L. Epps, of Greenville, for Amicus Curiae, South
Carolina Association for Justice.
PER CURIAM: La'Rissa Tidwell was injured in an automobile accident
while a passenger in the at-fault driver's vehicle. She recovered the liability limits
of the at-fault driver's insurance policy, but the insurer, Omni Insurance Group,
denied her benefits under the policy's underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
Omni brought a declaratory judgment action against Tidwell, asserting a policy
provision barred Tidwell, as an insured passenger, from recovering under both the
liability and UIM coverage. Tidwell's UIM insurer, Bristol West Insurance
Company, intervened. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of
Tidwell and Bristol, and Omni appealed.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. Reformation: Garris v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 280 S.C. 149, 153, 311 S.E.2d
723, 726 (1984) ("Underinsured motorist coverage is controlled by and
subject to our underinsured motorist act, and any insurance policy
provisions inconsistent therewith are void, and the relevant statutory
provisions prevail as if embodied in the policy."); Sloan Constr. Co., Inc. v.
Central Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha, 269 S.C. 183, 185, 236 S.E.2d 818, 819
(1977) ("Courts must enforce, not write, contracts of insurance, . . . ."); Kay
v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 349 S.C. 446, 449–50, 562 S.E.2d 676,
678 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding that where a policy provision is invalid, the
court could not rewrite the policy but must strike the void language and
apply the statutory language as controlling).
2. Two-Issue Rule: Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903
(2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than
one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all
grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case.").
AFFIRMED.
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,
concur.