Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Liberty Life Insurance Company denied insurance proceeds to Stephen Ney's beneficiary after toxicology reports reflected the presence of methamphetamine in Ney's blood when he was killed in a car accident. Respondent Hutchinson, Ney's daughter and beneficiary, sued Appellant for insurance benefits, arguing that the policy exclusion for injury resulting from an insured being "under the influence of any narcotic" did not apply to Ney's claim, because methamphetamine isn't a narcotic. The circuit court granted Respondent summary judgment on the ground that methamphetamine is not a narcotic within the definition of the policy. In this appeal, Appellant argues that the circuit curt erred in granting summary judgment when the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "narcotic" is understood by laypersons, and that he operative language of the policy, "under the influence of any narcotic" was taken verbatim from the state insurance code. On review of the case, the Supreme Court found Appellant's argument persuasive, and reversed and remanded the case to the lower court for further consideration.

Appellants Hanson Brick America, Inc and Zurich North America appeal the circuit court's order reversing the appellate panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that Respondent Lawson's knee problems were not causally related to his back injury sustained on the job, and the awarding Respondent temporary total disability benefits. Respondent, a fork lift operator, was injured while moving a bag of motor. Diagnosed with degenerative disk disease, Respondent underwent surgery and had bones fused and screws inserted in his spine. Following surgery, Respondent still suffered from back pain; several months later, he developed pain in both knees that affected his ability to walk. Respondent filed a Form 50 with the Commission to report his injuries, and seeking temporary total disability benefits. Appellants challenged Respondent's claim. The Commission's hearing officer ruled that Respondent was entitled to receive temporary total disability benefits, but that the pains in his knees were not a compensible injury. Prior to the Commission's final order, Respondent sought to have newly discovered evidence admitted for the Commission's consideration; Appellants objected, but the commissioner determined that Respondent, in addition to benefits for his back injury, should also receive compensation for his knee pain. On review of the records, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's determination that Lawson was entitled to temporary total disability benefits and further evaluation of his knees, and remand the case back to the appellate panel for reconsideration of all evidence.