Court Opinion

ID: 9580173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:02:47.008077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:06.768213
License: Public Domain

HEARN, C.J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent and would hold that Christopher was a resident relative of his mother at the time of the accident.
The majority’s decision to affirm is largely driven by our standard of review in a law case, i.e. whether there is any evidence to support the trial judge’s decision. While I agree there is evidence supporting the trial judge’s decision that Christopher was dependant on his father, I would hold the trial judge erred in not finding him dependant on his mother as well.
The uncontroverted evidence reflects that at the time of the accident in 1994, Christopher was a student at Clemson who relied on both his mother and father for financial support. Specifically, the record demonstrates that his mother contributed to his rent and was a guarantor on his lease. Although Christopher testified his father gave him a lump sum of money each semester for his tuition, the record also clearly shows that his mother contributed toward his tuition, groceries, and automobile expenses. In fact, Christopher testified that he had no idea about the insurance on his vehicle because he simply didn’t “handle that.” His mother testified without contradiction that she paid the premium on Christopher’s car insurance. She also paid the property taxes on the vehicle, claimed Christopher as a dependent on her tax returns, and maintained a room for him in her home. Christopher received his mail at her address and came home approximately every *160two weeks while he was at Clemson to do his laundry. Christopher testified that he had not stayed in his father’s home overnight since 1992.
Although I believe the record actually shows that Christopher was more dependent on his mother than on his father, I recognized there is some evidence, albeit slight, to support the trial judge’s decision that Christopher may have been more financially dependent on his father than on his mother. Nevertheless, it is simply irrelevant that Christopher may have been more dependent on one parent than the other. In either case, he still qualifies as a resident relative under the plain and ordinary language of the policy. The policy at issue defines relative thusly: “Relative means a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who lives with you. It includes your unmarried and dependent child who is away at school.” In my view, Christopher falls squarely within this definition of resident relative.
To the extent the trial judge interpreted the policy provision to mean that Christopher could only be dependent upon one of his parents and found he was not dependent upon his mother, he erred as a matter of law. Thus, I would reverse the trial judge’s decision that Christopher was not his mother’s resident relative.