I am honored that this blog was featured as the "Blawg of the Day" on Tom Mighell's Inter Alia blog last week. My other two blogs have previously received this honor, but this was the first for this blog. Tom goes a great job with his blog in featuring different law related blogs each day, and I appreciate him bestowing this honor on this blog.
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.
The widow of former Minnesota Viking Korey Stringer, who died of heatstroke, may proceed with her lawsuit against the NFL and equipment maker Riddell Inc. In her negligence lawsuit, she claims the defendants did not do enough to ensure the equipment protected players from injuries or death caused by heat-related illnesses. Her husband, a 335 lb lineman, died at the age of 27 after heat and humidity pushed his body temperature to 108.8 degrees.
Source: "Judge: Korey Stringer Lawsuit to Proceed" by Erica Ryan, published in the San Jose Mercury News.
My name is Ben Stevens, I am pleased to begin publishing this South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog. This is the third blog I publish, joining the South Carolina Family Law Blog (launched in June, 2005) and The Mac Lawyer (launched in August, 2006).
This blog will be a useful resource to those who have suffered injuries at the hand of others, and I look forward to bringing it to you. If you have any comments, tips, suggestions, etc. that you would like me to address in future posts, please don't hestiate to contact me. Thanks.
