Opinion ID: 1419253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: commercial layers date of hatch through 18 months schedule of amounts recoverable 100% recovery per bird limited to $1.50 loss recovery % value recovery loss recovery % months of $1.50 limit limit months of $ ... limit

Text: 1 28% 10 65% 2 41% 11 61% 3 56% 12 54% 4 73% 13 47% 5 95% 14 40% 6 100% 15 33% 7 92% 16 26% 8 84% 17 19% 9 75% 18 15% His Honor declined to instruct the jury that appellant's liability was limited by the foregoing schedule, reasoning that there was an ambiguity in the policy because Sec. 1, referred to the chickens insured as pullets while the clause above quoted was captioned Commercial Layers. His reasoning, if correct, would indicate a patent ambiguity for resolution by the court, rather than a latent ambiguity for resolution by the jury. Hann v. Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. , 252 S.C. 518, 167 S.E. (2d) 420. When, however, all of the pertinent provisions of the policy are considered, we are convinced that there was no ambiguity, either patent or latent, but, to the contrary, such provisions were clear and unambiguous. By the express terms of section 6, appellant's liability under the policy was limited to the loss recovery schedule therein. The only completed loss recovery schedule contained in the policy is the above quoted one entitled Commercial Layers. That schedule, we think, was designed, and clearly intended by the parties, to be applicable to commercial layers from date of hatch through 18 months, and of necessity included those pullets under five months of age which were being raised as and for commercial layers but were not yet of laying age. His Honor was in error, we conclude, in failing to hold that liability of the appellant was limited in accordance with said loss recovery schedule. Appellant's computation of the limit of its liability was arrived at as follows. The chickens were three months and three days old, hence liability was limited to 57.7% of $1.50, or $.8655 per bird or chicken. The accuracy of such computation is not challenged by the respondent who, on this point, simply contends that such loss recovery schedule is not applicable. It is now settled, we think, that where damages improperly awarded can be segregated from those which were properly awarded, it is appropriate for this Court to affirm the judgment as to the damages properly awarded but reverse as to those improperly awarded. Adcox v. American Home Assur. Co. , 258 S.C. 331, 188 S.E. (2d) 785; Black v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. , 171 S.C. 123, 171 S.E. 617. See also cases collected in West's South Carolina Digest, Appeal and Error, Key No. 1140. We conclude that the judgment below should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed to the extent of $17,108.34, together with interest thereon, but is reversed as to the excess which was improperly awarded. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. MOSS, C.J., and LEWIS, BRAILSFORD and LITTLEJOHN, JJ., concur.