Court Opinion

ID: 9851945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:22:01.85628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:19.960358
License: Public Domain

*402Bussey, Justice
(concurring) :
I am in accord with the conclusions reached in this and the contemporaneous case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., that the respective drivers were not using such vehicles with the “consent, express or implied, of the named insured(s).” Independently, however, of such consent, there is a serious question in my mind, not raised below or here, as to whether or not these drivers were, by statutory law, afforded coverage by the insurers of the vehicles which they drove. There are minors involved in both cases and it is settled that it is the duty of this Court, as well as the duty of guardians ad litem and attorneys for minors, to see that their rights are protected. Cumbie v. Cumbie, 245 S. C. 107, 139 S. E. (2d) 477. I would, therefore, in the interest of the minors, raise such question ex mero mo tu.
The term “insured”, as defined in Sec. 46-750.31 of the Code, includes the following:
“* * * and a guest in such motor vehicle to which the policy applies * * *.”
We have previously held that the present statutory definition of the term “insured” was formerly applicable only to uninsured motorist coverage but that by Act No. 312 of the Acts of 1963 such definition was made applicable to liability coverage. Pacific Ins. Co. of New York v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 247 S. C. 282, 147 S. E. (2d) 273; Willis v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 253 S. C. 91, 169 S. E. (2d) 282.
In each of these cases the question arises as to whether or not the driver of the vehicle was a guest in such vehicle, within the contemplation of the statute, and afforded coverage by virtue of the statute. I would remand each of the cases for the consideration and adjudication of such questions.