Court Opinion

ID: 9792921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:39:20.252086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:48.473570
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting:
I would agree that a self-insurer is not required to offer uninsured motorist coverage to a permissive user of its vehicles. This is not the issue that the parties have succeeded in having the Court address. The Court has addressed whether a self-insured rental company is required to offer uninsured motorist coverage to one of its customers. But the Court has not even established that the customer has obtained liability coverage through the rental company. Therefore, today’s opinion addresses an issue that is not properly framed within the record presented on appeal. This Court has issued a merely advisory opinion.
The majority opinion lists three coverages that the appellant rejected: 1) collision damage waiver; 2) personal accident insurance; and 3) personal effects coverage. The opinion then observes that the appellant declined all three coverages described in the rental agreement. In a footnote, the Court notes that there is language in the rental contract that may have resulted in the appellee’s agreeing to provide liability coverage to the appellant. But because the effect of this clause was not argued by either party, the opinion notes that it does not address the possible effects of the provision. I must conclude that the Court is treating the facts as though the appellant rejected all coverage.1
If the Court finds that the appellant was not covered by a liability provision, then no uninsured motorist coverage need be offered *1353because, pursuant to title 36, § 3636, such coverage is based upon liability coverage. Not even an insurance carrier is obligated to offer uninsured motorist coverage to a potential customer who has just rejected the liability policy.
We have previously held: “This Court will not decide abstract or hypothetical questions disconnected from the granting of actual relief or make determinations where no prac: tical relief may be granted.” Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer County, 701 P.2d 754, 761 (1984). Therefore, even if this Court had decided that a self-insured car rental company must provide uninsured motorist coverage to its customers who accept liability coverage, it would have no effect on this case because, according to the facts set forth in the majority opinion, the appellant rejected such coverage. Accordingly, I must dissent.

. An examination of the rental contract provision seems to show an intention by Hertz to provide liability coverage for the vehicle and the operator. Although the quality of the copy provided to the Court is poor, the provision appears to provide: "10. LIABILITY PROTECTIONS, (a) Within the limits stated herein, Hertz will indemnify, hold harmless, and defend You and any Authorized Operators FROM AND AGAINST LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES, EXCLUDING ANY OF YOUR OR ANY AUTHORIZED OPERATORS FAMILY MEMBERS RELATED BY BLOOD, MARRIAGE OR ADOPTION RESIDING WITH YOU OR THEM. For bodily injury the limits of this protection limits are $100,000 for each person, $300,000 for each accident, and for property damage $25,000 for each accident, which accident results from the use of the car as protected by this agreement. The higher limit under LIS will be provided only if You accept LIS. This protection shall conform to the basic requirements of any applicable "No Fault” [illegible] BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE "UNINSURED MOTORIST," "UNDER-INSURED MOTORIST,” SUPPLEMENTARY "NO FAULT” OR ANY OTHER OPTIONAL PROTECTION. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, HERTZ AND YOU HEREBY REJECT THE INCLUSION *1353OF ANY SUCH PROTECTION. In the event that such coverage is imposed, by operation of law, for the benefit of persons other than You or any Authorized Operators, then the limits of such coverage shall be the minimum required by the law of the jurisdiction in which the accident occurs. Hertz warrants that the protection described in this paragraph is primary with respect to any [illegible] coverage You or any Authorized Operators may have....” Because the majority opinion has determined not to address the effects of this provision, it has treated the facts as though no liability coverage was provided to the appellant by Hertz.