BROADCASTS.com

b'

Occupancy Provision Prevents Coverage for Insured Injured as a \\nPedestrian\\n\\nGeorge Mims was injured when he was struck by an automobile while \\nwalking toward his own vehicle. At the time of the accident Mims had no \\ncontact with his vehicle, either before or after the accident, and there\\n was no causal connection between his vehicle and the injuries he \\nsuffered.\\n\\nIn George Mims; Cecilia Mims v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, No. \\n21-1654, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (March 21, \\n2023), George and Cecilia Mims appealed the district court\'s orders \\ngranting USAA Casualty Insurance Company\'s motion for summary judgment \\nand denying the Mimses\' subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment\\n or for certification of questions to the South Carolina Supreme Court \\non the Mimses\' declaratory judgment action related to the stacking of \\nunderinsured motorist coverage under their insurance policy with USAA.\\n\\nSOUTH CAROLINA LAW\\n\\nSummary judgment is only warranted if the movant shows that there is no \\ngenuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to \\njudgment as a matter of law.\\n\\nUnder South Carolina law, stacking allows an insured motorist to recover\\n damages under more than one policy until he satisfies all of his \\ndamages or exhausts the limits of his available policies. An insured may\\n stack unless limited by statute or a valid provision in his insurance \\npolicy. South Carolina law limits stacking of underinsured motorist \\ncoverage if none of the insured\'s or named insured\'s vehicles is \\ninvolved in the accident. Instead, coverage is available only to the \\nextent of coverage on any one of the vehicles with excess or \\nunderinsured coverage.\\n\\nTHE RECORD\\n\\nThe record made clear that Mims had no contact with his vehicle, either \\nbefore or after the accident, and established that there was no causal \\nconnection between his vehicle and the injuries he suffered. Mims was \\nwalking to his vehicle at the time he was struck but, according to his \\nown testimony, he had not yet reached his vehicle or physically engaged \\nwith it besides unlocking it remotely from across the parking lot.\\n

ANALYSIS\\n\\nRegardless of whether the Mims\' policy provision broadens or narrows the\\n circumstances in which stacking is allowed, the circumstances here are \\nnot encompassed by the provision, as Mims was not "in, on, getting into \\nor out of" his vehicle at the time of the accident.\\n\\nUnder South Carolina law, act of getting to or approaching a vehicle is \\nbeyond terms of insurance policy with occupancy provision.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nAlthough stacking is important to a person injured by an uninsured or \\nunderinsured motorist, when there is a policy that requires the insured \\nto occupy his vehicle for there to be coverage, the right to stacking \\nbecomes irrelevant. since Mr. Mims was not "in, on, getting into or out \\nof his vehicle" at the time of the accident. When there is no coverage \\nat all there is no need to stack coverages.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.