No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that South Carolina Code Section 38-77-142(C) voids Nationwide's step-down provisions that attempted to limit automobile liability insurance coverage to the statutory mandatory minimum.
In this declaratory judgment action, Nationwide relies on flight-from-law enforcement and felony step-down provisions in an automobile liability insurance policy to limit its coverage to the statutory mandatory minimum. Following a bench trial and after issuance of this Court's opinion in Williams v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO), 409 S.C. 586, 762 S.E.2d 705 (2014), the circuit court held the step-down provisions were void pursuant to Section 38-77-142(C) of the South Carolina Code (2015). The court of appeals reversed. We now reverse the court of appeals and hold that section 38-77-142(C) renders Nationwide's attempt to limit the contracted-for liability insurance to the mandatory minimum void.
Nationwide v. Walls: Insurance Coverage Ruling
This case involved a dispute over auto insurance coverage limits. Nationwide Insurance tried to use special provisions in their policy called "step-down" clauses to reduce the amount they would pay out in certain situations - specifically when someone was fleeing from police or committing a felony. These provisions would have lowered coverage to just the minimum amounts required by South Carolina law, rather than the full coverage the policyholder purchased.
The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled against Nationwide, deciding that these step-down provisions were invalid under state law. The court found that South Carolina Code Section 38-77-142(C) prohibits insurance companies from using such clauses to limit coverage below what customers paid for. This reversed an earlier appeals court decision.
This matters for workers because it protects the insurance coverage you pay for. If you purchase auto insurance through your employer or on your own, insurance companies cannot use fine-print clauses to dramatically reduce your coverage when you need it most. The ruling ensures that when you buy a certain level of coverage, that's what you actually get, rather than allowing insurers to find ways to pay out less than promised.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Nationwide from the same court.
For eighty-two years, this Court struggled to correctly apply the "statutory employee doctrine." Today, following our more recent decisions on the statutory employee doctrine, we apply the doctrine in light of the General Assembly's original purpose for enacting it. We find the circuit court and…
In this appeal arising out of Anderson County Council's approval of a severance agreement, the Court vacates the decision of the Court of Appeals finds the Severance Agreement invalid due to the County's lack of a quorum and remands to the circuit court to determine the exact amount that Preston…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.