Hamm v. Travelers Property Casualty Company

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 Court of Appeals

Donnie Ray
Hamm, Respondent,

v.

Travelers Property
Casualty Company of America, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
and Kay V. Daily, Defendants,

Of Whom
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America is Appellant,

and

State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is also Respondent.

Appeal From Anderson County

 Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-417

Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed September
20, 2010

REVERSED

William P. Davis, of Columbia, for Appellant.

John M. O'Rourke, of Anderson, and John P. Riordan, of Greenville,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
(Travelers) appeals the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in
favor of Donnie Ray Hamm and reforming his employer's insurance policy to
include underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.  Specifically, the circuit court
found Travelers failed to make a meaningful offer of UIM coverage because the
renewal form did not list the premiums for each additional coverage amount. 
Travelers argues on appeal that the lower court erred in granting summary
judgment because (1) State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Wannamaker,
291 S.C. 518, 354 S.E.2d 555 (1987) does not require premium amounts for the
various options of UIM coverage limits to be included on the offer form to
constitute a meaningful offer; (2) Hamm's employer, NationsRent, Inc.,
understood the nature of UIM coverage and intended to reject the offer
regardless of the missing premiums on the form; and (3) the absence of the
premium amounts is irrelevant because the offer would have been rejected
regardless. 

This
Court granted Traveler's motion to hold the opinion in abeyance pending a
decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court in Grinnell Corp. v. Wood,
378 S.C. 458, 663 S.E.2d 61 (Ct. App. 2008).[1] 
We reverse[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Grinnell
Corp. v. Wood, Op. No. 26869 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Aug. 16, 2010) (Shearouse
Adv. Sh. No. 33 at 66) (holding a meaningful offer was made where risk manager
knew his options with respect to additional UM and UIM coverage and knowingly
declined the offer despite the form being insufficient because to hold
otherwise would create an absurd result); Ray v. Austin, Op. No. 26858
(S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Aug. 16, 2010) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 32 at 37) (stating
that if the court were to find that the insurer failed to make a meaningful
offer of UIM coverage because it failed to offer coverage in more specific
terms, this would create an absurd result of reforming the insurance policy and
giving the insured coverage it understood, did not want, and clearly rejected); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518
S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) ("appellate court need not address remaining
issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive"). 

REVERSED.

PIEPER, GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

[1] Before we
issued the opinion herein, both parties were allowed an opportunity to brief
the applicability of Grinnell Corp. v. Wood, Op. No. 26869 (S.C. Sup.
Ct. filed Aug. 16, 2010) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 33 at 58). 

[2] We decide this
case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.