Owners Insurance Company v. Jeffrey Edward Walsh

Florence, South Carolina insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiff on an uninsured motorist claim.



Edward Joseph Walsh, III was riding his lawn mower when he was struck and killed by an underinsured motorist. Walsh had underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage on two personal automobiles insured by Owners Insurance Company. After Owners paid benefits equal to the UIM coverage limits for a single covered automobile, Walsh's estate sought to stack the UIM coverage from the other.



The salient facts are brief and undisputed. On March 28, 2022, Walsh was riding his lawn mower in Dillon County, South Carolina when he was fatally struck by a vehicle owned by Caleb Jaliek Miles and operated by Jaquan Allen. Having exhausted the liability coverage associated with the Miles vehicle, Walsh's estate made a claim for UIM benefits

against Walsh's personal automobile policy. The declarations for Walsh's policy listed two automobiles: a 1989 Cadillac and a 2008 Ford. Each scheduled automobile had $100,000 in UIM bodily injury coverage and $50,000 in UIM property damage coverage.



Walsh's estate demanded $300,000 from Owners representing the combined UIM limits for the two scheduled automobiles. Owners paid $150,000, the portable UIM bodily injury and property damage limits for a single scheduled automobile, and asserted that the insured was not entitled to stack additional coverage. The estate asked Owners to reconsider, and the insurer declined.



Owners filed a declaratory judgment action in the District of South Carolina to

establish that it owed no additional UIM benefits related to the accident. Jeffrey Edward

Walsh, as personal representative of the decedent's estate, counterclaimed for declaratory

judgment, breach of contract, and bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. Evaluating

the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court determined that the

policy terms disallowed stacking and that this limitation was consistent with South

Carolina law.



The court granted summary judgment to Owners and dismissed the case.

Affirmed