II. Persons Covered by Uninsured Motorist Coverage

• Library: The Law of Automobile Insurance in SC (SCBar) (2015 Ed.)

II. Persons Covered by Uninsured Motorist Coverage

A. General

Section 38-77-150 provides that every insurance policy must contain an uninsured motorist endorsement "undertaking to pay the insured" damages recoverable from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle.¹⁵ Section 38-77-30(7) defines two classes of "insureds": (1) the named insured, plus, while resident of the same household, the named insured's spouse and relatives of either; and (2) any person who uses with the consent, express or implied, of the named insured, the motor vehicle to which the policy applies, and a guest in such motor vehicle to which the policy applies, or the personal representative of any of the above.

Because each class of insureds is afforded different coverage under the statute, it is important to determine the classification of the claimant. The named insured, his spouse and resident relatives are insured "while in a motor vehicle or otherwise," whereas the permissive user or guest are insured only when they are injured "while occupying the insured motor vehicle."¹⁶

B. The Named Insureds and their Relatives and Family Members

The named insured is the insured named in the policy's declaration pages. Spouses and their relatives are covered only when they reside in the same household.¹⁷ Judge Goolsby stated for the court of appeals in Inman v. South Carolina Insurance Co.¹⁸ that because the Act "does not define the term 'relative,' we are required to give the term its ordinary and popular meaning. A relative is ordinarily defined as 'a person connected by blood or marriage.' A 'relative' may also include one who is adopted."¹⁹ The Act only includes relatives, not family members.²⁰ The supreme court construed the uninsured motorist statutes to require coverage for the insured's stepson in Pacific Insurance Co. of New York v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.²¹ But in Inman, the court of appeals held that a 28-year-old adult who, "had for some time been a member of the household" of the insured's son-in-law, but who was not connected by blood, marriage, or adoption, was not a relative within the meaning of the Act.

The courts, in deciding issues of residency or determining who is a spouse or relative, appear to follow precedent dealing with omnibus coverage.²² Additionally, there is precedent available related to residency for stacking purposes that gives some indications as to how the court will deal with residency determinations under this statute. For instance, litigation has focused on the resident relative requirements for Class I status as our courts have struggled with defining the limitations of stacking coverage. In Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Horne,²³ the court was forced to evaluate the residency of a 17-year-old daughter splitting time between divorced parents. After evaluating a number of different residency tests, the court went on to note that there is no bright line test and each case must be considered on its individual facts. In Horne, the daughter had not spent sufficient time with her father in recent months to establish the necessary intent for his home to be considered a residence.

In Cook v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.,²⁴ the court of appeals determined that a granddaughter was not a resident relative of her grandfather even though she resided at the same property. The granddaughter resided in a separate trailer on the property with her mother and it was determined that this was sufficiently separate to prevent her from being determined a resident...