Document: 333 U.S. 153 68 S.Ct. 488 92 L.Ed. 608 KINGv.ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS AMERICA. No. 171. Argued Dec. 10, 11, 1947. Decided March 8, 1948. Rehearing Denied April 19, Messrs. Harvey W. Johnson and Jesse Boyd, both of Spartanburg, S.C., for petitioner. C. F. Haynsworth, Greenville, E. Dillon, Columbus, Ohio, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is a suit to obtain payment proceeds $5,000 insurance policy. Federal jurisdiction founded on diversity citizenship, and, present purposes, South Carolina law controlling.1 We granted certiorari2 in order determine whether Circuit Court Appeals' refusal (161 F.2d 108) follow only decision directly point, Common Pleas, was consistent with Rules Decision Act3 as applied Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 64, 58 817, 82 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, subsequent cases. 2 The petitioner, Mrs. King, beneficiary policy; her husband, Lieutenant insured; respondent Order United Travelers America insurer. policy insured against King's accidental death, but contained clause exempting from liability 'death resulting participation * aviation.' It this aviation exclusion which gave rise litigation now before us. 3 King lost his life one day winter 1943 when land-based Civil Air Patrol plane he flight observer made an emergency landing thirty miles off coast North Carolina. sank, not seriously hurt managed get out don jacket. He still alive two half hours later, accompanying forced leave scene. When picked up about four after landing, however, dead. medical diagnosis 'drowning result exposure water.' 4 took position that while 'accidental,' resulted 'participation Accordingly, it refused pay A resident Carolina, she then sued court State, contending drowning rather than airplane cause death within meaning respondent, Ohio corporation, exercised its statutory right remove federal District Western Carolina.4 5 parties agreed controlling, time Court's neither them had located any clauses by court. therefore fell back what deemed be general principles law, enunciated State supreme Court: ambiguities contract are resolved favor beneficiary, accident policies, immediate, remote cause.5 Applying these principles, held drowning, aviation, entitled recover.6 6 Two months court, Pleas Spartanburg County, likewise ruled different insurer $2,500 almost identical clause. judge followed same reasoning relied, at least part, court's decision. Under statutes second case t appeal court,7 did do so. 7 On case, Appeals reversed judgment King.8 acknowledged under policies construed insurer, found no ambiguity insofar application facts concerned. contrary, Kings' thought clearly have Nothing Supreme decisions, said, inconsistent view, whereas accepted theories proximate tort cases supported it.9 circumstances, expressed disbelief would been it, 'in face reason very considerable authority' other jurisdictions.10 favor, thought, binding final expression since courts rendering relied ruling case. 8 After we certiorari, new factor interjected Another Greenville handed down which, so far relevant here, expressly rejected espoused Appeals. 9 What effect, if any, should give becomes appropriate subject inquiry first determined erred following decision, outstanding action.11 address ourselves question. 10 Act12 commands regard 'rules decision' substantive 'laws' state, except where Constitution, treaties or States Provide otherwise. And decided 'laws,' context, include state statutes, also unwritten pronounced courts. 11 ideal aimed Act is, course, uniformity each state. So long does impinge interests, may shape own direction sees fit, inadmissible dependent differently according they particularly true factors such citizenship amount controlversy enable choose tried 12 Effectuation comparatively easy issue confronting has previously highest state; decisions opinions left open, more difficult question effect given lower points never passed y 13 years series presented some aspects In three bound state's intermediate appellate unless there persuasive evidence rule Six Companies California Joint Highway California, 1940, 311 180, 61 186, 85 114; West American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 223, 179, 139, 132 956; Stoner New York Life Ins. 464, 336, 284.13 fourth Fidelity Union Trust Field, 169, 176, 109, went farther announced earlier Jersey Chancery, original jurisdiction. 14 not, lay respect accorded trial decisions. pains point status Chancery usual nisi prius state-wide Its standing equity side comparable Jersey's side. uniform over course seldom set aside chancery decrees were ordinarily treated later chancery. 15 involves attack Act, principle soundness referred above. practical administration Act; raises whether, run, promote confronted questions obliged Pleas. 16 Courts make Carolina's basic system civil actions.14 There fourteen judges courts, judicial circuits into forty-six counties grouped.15 circuit hears specified times county comprising assigned, called particular county.16 addition, presides paralled criminal General Sessions. tier directly, matter right, Court.17 17 While denominated record, their published digested form whatsoever. They filed tried, even sole index parties' names.18 Perhaps because preclude ready availability bench bar, seem little weight precedents connection, submitted certificate 'under practice unappealed solely upon who constitute precedent Carolina.' 18 Consideration leads us conclusion commit error. properly attributed believe justified holding controlling proceeding determination probably similar 19 place, appear importance competence taken authoritiative expositions State's 'law.' future between parties, indicated above, exact conformity either lesser courts19 territorial jurisdiction; apparently ignored without compunctions often experience reaching results divergent those reached another coordinate Thus informed, itself commonly acted bar inferior courts.'20 Furthermore, recently occasion remark, adjudicating State';21 incongruous indeed hold 20 Secondly, difficulty locating great significance. Litigants could find all laboriously searching rolls counties. To must abide might well put premium financial ability required exhaustive screening maintenance private records. afford practices, rights chance; every cited counsel dozen adverse undiscovered.22 21 affirming below, deciding County. purport correctness merits. Nor our promulgating need determinations As situations states call result. 22 add error reversal necessarily view decision.23 But prefer illustration perils interpreting definitive 'South law,' 23 Affirmed. Both below held, until briefed thi Court, party raised full faith credit Hence unnecessary consider Commercial Wolfe, 1947, 331 586, 67 1355, applicable. 332 754, 70. Judiciary 1789, § 34, R.S. 721, 28 U.S.C. 725, U.S.C.A. 725. 71, 71. For proposition Goethe 1937, 183 S.C. 199, 190 S.E. 451. died vigorous efforts fire. disputed symptoms shown just heatstroke heart disease death. suffered time. upheld jury caused then, most 'bodily injury' seems us, Appeals, questionable supports cited. D.C.1946, 65 F.Supp. 740. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 26 780. Cir., 161 108. Horne Atlantic Coast Line 1935, 177 461, 181 642. Among Neel Mutual York, 1942, 131 159, Green Benefit 1944, 144 55. Although Spartenburg rendered proper it. See Vandenbark Owens-Illinois Glass 1941, 538, 347, 327. note 3, supra. review decision; cases, involved engaged courts; remained books twenty disapproval. These mentioned opinions, determinative. 178, 109. S.C.Const. Art. 5, 15. limited jurisdiction, varying somewhat county. County handles appeals county's probate 228, domestic relations, id. 256-24 256-44, magistrates latter concurrent suits involving less $100, 257. $3,000, Sout 184 190. 13; 50. provision periodic interchange among circuits. 22. 16; 51—64. S.C.Circuit Rule 39. Clerk 27. I.e., relations. 236, 183, 956. Guaranty 1945, 326 99, 108, 1464, 1469, 89 2079, 160 1231. came light petitioner h e respondent's

Category: 8