Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1996

Putnam v. SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided September 3, 1996 · Per Curiam

476 S.E.2d 902; 323 S.C. 494; 1996 S.C. LEXIS 166 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Booth v. Allstate Insurance (District Court, D. South Carolina 2004)
Kay v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. (S.C. Ct. App. 2002)
Concrete Services, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (S.C. 1998)
Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina v. Howell (District Court, D. South Carolina 2022)
Houghtling v. Allstate Insurance Company (District Court, D. South Carolina 2019)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Per Curiam:

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in Putnam v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 95-UP-305 (S.C. Ct. App. filed November 25,1995). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and affirm in result only.

*496 The Court of Appeals correctly held that S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (Supp. 1995) prohibits stacking of underinsured motorist insurance (UIM) where none of the insured’s vehicles are involved in the accident. However, the Court of Appeals incorrectly held an insured could not contract for an insurance policy which specifically provides for stacking even if none of his vehicles are involved in the accident. An insured may contract for insurance coverage which is greater than that required by statute. See, Belk v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 271 S.C. 24, 244 S.E. (2d) 744 (1978); Hamrick v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 270 S.C. 176, 241 S.E. (2d) 548 (1978) (policy of insurance may give more protection than minimum required by statutory law).

Nonetheless, petitioner’s second insurance policy 1 specifically limited his UIM coverage to the policy with the highest coverage and prohibited stacking of UIM policies. Accordingly, petitioner did not contract for the ability to stack his UIM policies. For this reason, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, as modified.

Affirmed as modified.

Respondent paid petitioner UIM benefits under one insurance policy but refused to pay UIM benefits under petitioner’s second insurance policy.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.