§ 1.10 Duty to Read the Policy

• Library: Guide to South Carolina Liability and Property Insurance Law (SCBar) (2019 Ed.)

§ 1.10 Duty to Read the Policy

"It is well settled in South Carolina than an insured has the duty of reading his insurance policy and of acquainting himself with its contents."¹¹¹ In addition South Carolina courts "have consistently followed the rule that ordinarily one cannot complain of fraud in the misrepresentation of the content of a written instrument when the truth could have been ascertained by reading the instrument, and one entering into a written contract should read it and avail himself of every reasonable opportunity to understand its content and meaning.¹¹² However, if the insured is determined to be ignorant or illiterate, courts will not employ this rule.¹¹³

The South Carolina Supreme Court determined that the insured's failure to read the policy was fatal to the claim against the insurance agent. The insured brought suit against the insurance agent as a result of the insurer failing to pay a claim for the collapse of a roof and damage to other parts of the building caused by the snow and ice storm.¹¹⁴ The policy was a standard fire insurance policy and provided coverage against fire and lightning, extended coverage, and vandalism and malicious mischief. The policy also provided "Provisions Applicable Only to Windstorm and Hail: This Company shall not be liable for loss caused directly or indirectly by frost or cold weather, or ice (other than hail), snow or sleet, whether driven by wind or not."¹¹⁵ Based on the policy language, the insurer denied the claim. The insured brought suit against the insurance agent alleging fraud and misrepresentation.¹¹⁶ The Court explained:

Plaintiff admits that he never read the INA policy. Also, he read neither the American Casualty policy nor the two Hanover policies issued to him through [the insurance agency] following the expiration of the American Casualty policy written through [another agency], by his own admissions from the witness stand. Each of these four policies insured against identical risks, and each contained an identical exclusion eliminating from its coverages loss by frost, cold weather, snow, sleet or ice, of which he now complains. From the undisputed evidence, and by his own admissions, from 1965 until the date of the snow and ice storm, January 8, 1973, plaintiff had in his possession written instruments, the four policies, and, had he been sufficiently careful to read them, and exercised reasonable prudence, he should have known, and would have known, that damage from snow, sleet and

...