Automobile Insurance Company Not Allowed to Intervene in Family Court Action

Can an insurance company interject itself into a Family Court action filed to determine whether or not someone has a valid common law marriage?  The South Carolina Supreme Court answered this question by clearly stating "no" in an opinion filed yesterday, In Re Cooper.

By way of background, GEICO brought a declaratory judgment action in Circuit Court against Mr. Cooper to determine the parties’ rights pursuant to an automobile insurance policy issued to Ms. Goethe.  Specifically, Mr. Cooper claimed he was entitled to stack underinsured motorist coverage provided by Ms. Goethe's policy on the grounds that he was a Class I insured. GEICO denied Mr. Cooper’s claim, because it found that Mr. Cooper was not a Class I insured because he was neither the spouse nor resident relative of Ms. Goethe.

After GEICO denied Mr. Cooper’s claim to stack coverage, he filed an action in Family Court seeking an order validating his common law marriage to Ms. Goethe since 1991.  GEICO petitioned the Family Court to permit it to join an action pursuant to Rule 19 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (SCRCP), or to intervene pursuant to Rule 24, SCRCP.  As grounds supporting its motion, GEICO alleged that the Family Court’s decision on the parties’ common law marriage would impact GEICO’s ability to protect its interests under the insurance policy issued to Ms. Goethe.  The Family Court denied the motion, and GEICO® appealed. 

The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, although GEICO may be affected by the outcome of the Family Court action, its interest is insufficient to meet the requirements for joinder pursuant to Rule 19(a)(2)(i), SCRCP.  Further, it found that the Family Court did not err in denying GEICO’s petition to intervene in Cooper’s Family Court action. The subject matter of the Family Court action is the validity of a common law marriage, which does not involve a determination of insurance benefits. Accordingly, GEICO did not have standing to intervene in the Family Court action because it did not have an interest sufficiently related to the subject matter of the action.

You can read the full text of In Re Cooper by clicking HERE.