Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Burch v. Farm Bureau

Date: 08-19-2002

Case Number: 3542

Judge: Huff

Court: In The Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Plaintiff's Attorney: "_new">Robert J. Thomas, of Columbia, for appellant.

Defendant's Attorney: "_new">William O. Spencer, Jr., of Chesterfield; and "_new">Stephen R. Suggs, of Columbia, for respondents.

Description:

Warren Burch brought this declaratory judgment action seeking reformation of an insurance policy to include underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The special referee found the insurer, South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), failed to make an effective offer of UIM coverage and reformed the policy because it did not specifically offer amounts less than the minimum liability limits carried by the insured. Farm Bureau appeals. We reverse. (1)

Factual/Procedural Background

Burch is seeking UIM coverage for an automobile accident that occurred on October 22, 1995 when he was struck by an at-fault motorist whose insurance did not cover all of his losses. Freeman was a passenger in Burch's vehicle.

At the time of the accident, Burch was driving a 1993 Toyota Tercel which was insured by Farm Bureau under Policy No. 805760. The policy carried bodily injury liability limits of $50,000/$100,000, but the declaration page did not list any UIM coverage.

Burch originally obtained the policy in question in January 1986 for coverage on a 1985 Chevrolet Chevette. On the 1986 application, the blocks for uninsured (UM) and UIM coverages listed no coverage, and these blocks were initialed by Burch where he rejected the coverage. In January 1988, Farm Bureau sent a separate offer form to Burch, which he signed rejecting UIM coverage. He checked the box which provided, "I want only the minimum UM benefits. I understand NO UIM benefits are provided."

* * *

Click the case caption above for the
full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome:

Based on the foregoing circumstances, we conclude Farm Bureau made a meaningful offer of UIM coverage to Burch. We therefore reverse the referee's order granting reformation of the policy to include UIM coverage.

Reversed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Unavailable

Defendant's Experts:

Unavailable

Comments:

C.L.

About This Case

What was the outcome of Burch v. Farm Bureau?

The outcome was: Based on the foregoing circumstances, we conclude Farm Bureau made a meaningful offer of UIM coverage to Burch. We therefore reverse the referee's order granting reformation of the policy to include UIM coverage. Reversed.

Which court heard Burch v. Farm Bureau?

This case was heard in In The Court of Appeals of South Carolina, SC. The presiding judge was Huff.

Who were the attorneys in Burch v. Farm Bureau?

Plaintiff's attorney: Robert J. Thomas, of Columbia, for appellant.. Defendant's attorney: William O. Spencer, Jr., of Chesterfield; and Stephen R. Suggs, of Columbia, for respondents..

When was Burch v. Farm Bureau decided?

This case was decided on August 19, 2002.