Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns a dispute over a boat-owner's insurance policy between Graddie Hubbs and GEICO following an injury to Wayne Vestal, Jr. during a water skiing incident. Graddie Hubbs had an insurance policy with GEICO, which was alleged to be void due to misrepresentation. However, a master found the policy active with a $10,000 limitation on water skiing activities. The Hubbs challenged this limitation and sought attorney fees after GEICO refused to defend them. The court upheld the master's finding of the limitation, stating that Graddie was informed of it and chose not to purchase additional coverage. The court also dismissed the argument that the limitation did not apply since Wayne, Jr. was not actively skiing at the injury time, interpreting the policy as covering boat use during skiing. Importantly, the court found the master erred in not considering attorney fees under S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-9-320, remanding the case for a determination of entitlement to these fees. The decision was affirmed in part, with modifications regarding attorney fees, and the appeal did not include the boat’s driver, Jeff Yasmine.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney Fees Recovery Under S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-9-320subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the master erred by not considering the entitlement to attorney fees and remanded the case for a determination on this issue.
Reasoning: The court determining that the master erred by not considering the Hubbs’ entitlement to fees under S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-9-320, which permits recovery of reasonable attorney fees when an insurer refuses to defend without reasonable cause.
Insurance Policy Coverage Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the master's finding that the $10,000 coverage limitation for water skiing activities within the policy was valid.
Reasoning: The court upheld the master’s finding that the $10,000 limitation was valid, noting that Graddie had been informed of the limitation and opted not to purchase additional coverage.
Scope of Policy Language in Insurance Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court interpreted the policy language to apply to the use of the boat during water skiing, regardless of the specific activities of individuals on board.
Reasoning: The court rejected the argument that the limitation should not apply because Wayne, Jr. was not actively water skiing at the time of his injury, reasoning that the policy language pertains to the use of the boat during water skiing, regardless of the specific activities of individuals on board.