Court Opinion

ID: 9621693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:03:37.478119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:07.091308
License: Public Domain

Justice PLEICONES.
I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm the circuit court order granting summary judgment to Lumbermens. I write separately because I conclude that we need not reach the Wannamaker4/statutory presumption5 “meaningful offer” issues where, as here, the insured’s agent does not contend he lacked all the information necessary to make an intelligent decision whether and in what amount to purchase underinsured and uninsured coverage. See S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (2002).
The typical “meaningful offer” case arises when an insured or third party to the insurance contract seeks to reform that contract to include underinsured or uninsured coverage, alleging that the insurer failed to meet its obligation to make a sufficient offer under § 38-77-160. In essence, the insurer can rely on the Wannamaker factors or a statutorily acceptable form as an affirmative defense in such a suit, relying on this evidence to show it in fact conveyed the requisite information to the insured. In my opinion, however, where the insured itself does not dispute it had all the information necessary to make an informed, intelligent choice, there is no need to discuss whether the form was acceptable under § 38-77-350 or whether Wannamaker has been satisfied.
I concur in the decision to uphold the grant of summary judgment here.

. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wannamaker, 291 S.C. 518, 354 S.E.2d 555 (1987).

. S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-350 (2002 and Supp.2009).