Case ID: sc_259/html/0306-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

19489
    AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants
    (191 S. E. (2d) 720)
    
      
      Messrs. Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, and Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, all of Greenville, for Appellants,
    
    
      Messrs. Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, of Green-ville, for Respondent,
    
    September. 19, 1972.
   Per Curiam.

The question in this case is whether the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (Sections 46-750. 31 (2) and 46-750.32, Supplement to the 1962 Code of Laws) requires that automobile liability insurance policies issued in this State provide coverage for a minor, unmarried son of an insured and resident of her household, while driving a vehicle not listed in the policy. The lower court held that such coverage was not required by the statutes.

The judgment under appeal is affirmed under the decision in Crenshaw v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, S. C., 191 S. E. (2d) 718, filed this date.