Court Opinion

ID: 9853635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:51:26.91176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:56.811391
License: Public Domain

StukES, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice in this case because I think that the policy is reasonably susceptible of the construction that it covered the hospitalization for *79which the insured made claim, and on account of which the company wrongfully undertook to cancel the policy. Ambiguous policy provisions should be construed in favor of the insured. Cullum v. New York L. Ins. Co., 197 S. C. 6, 14 S. E. (2d) 361, 135 A. L. R. 867; Harwell v. Mutual Benefit H. & A. Ass’n, 207 S. C. 150, 35 S. E. (2d) 160, 161 A. L. R. 183. The patent ambiguities in the policy provisions made admissible in evidence the parol negotiations between the agent and the insured. 29 Am. Jur. 1126, Insurance, sec. 1501. DeVore v. Piedmont Ins. Co., 144 S. C. 417, 142 S. E. 593. Schultz v. Benefit Ass'n, 175 S C. 182, 178 S. E. 867.
However, I agree with the conclusion of the Chief Justice that the enforceability of the policy under the foregoing construction of its terms negatives the cause of action upon which the insured sued in this action. If the policy provides the benefits which were agreed upon between the agent and the insured, which I think it does under the evidence, the insured’s action should of course have been upon the policy. Instead, he took the contrary, untenable position that the policy was “worthless”, as he says in the complaint. Especially because of the former litigation, this result is a havsh one upon the insured, but hé has made his own bed.
OxnER, J., concurs.