Court Opinion

ID: 9826262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:41:42.913869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:58.858562
License: Public Domain

Order on Petition Eor Rehearing
The opinion of this Court in this cause was filed on March 25, 1938. In due time a petition for a rehearing was filed by counsel for respondent. We have given due consideration to the petition for rehearing, and are of the opinion that it should be refused.
Petitioners give as their reasons for a rehearing that this Court in its opinion herein overlooked certain matters. We are fully aware of the difference between liability and indemnity insurance contracts as pointed out in Piper v. Casualty Co., 157 S. C., 106, and with this in mind we held:
“That one who alleges injury due to the negligent operation of a motor vehicle which is privately owned and pricately used, and not used as a common carrier, may not unite in his complaint a cause of action in tort against the owner and operator of the motor vehicle with a cause of action on a contract of liability insurance carried by the owner of the motor vehicle.”
*238And we further held that Andrews v. Poole, 182 S. C., 206 is “authorized only in cases involving common carriers.” We think, however, from a further consideration of that decision, the conclusion could be reached, and properly so, that the Court there based its decision entirely upon the fact that the contract of insurance there was one for liability and not for indemnity. The correct rule is as stated in the Piper case and followed in the case at bar. Any holding, or apparent holding, to the contrary in Andrews v. Poole, supra, is hereby expressly overruled.
We adhere to our holding that the case of Andrews v. Poole is now authority only in cases involving common carriers.
With this explanation, it is ordered that the petition be dismissed and the order staying the remittitur revoked.
Messrs. Justices Boni-iam, Baker and Fisi-iburne and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Wm. H. Grimbarr concur.