Kay v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that where a policy provision is invalid, the court could not rewrite the policy but must strike the void language and apply the statutory language as controlling
• “South Carolina courts have interpreted [S.C. Code § 38-77-160] to allow Class I insureds to stack UIM coverage from multiple automobile insurance policies.”
• \South Carolina courts have interpreted [section 38-77-160] to allow Class I insureds to stack UIM coverage from multiple automobile insurance policies.\
• “if the intention of the parties is clear, courts have no authority to torture the meaning of policy language to extend or defeat coverage that was never intended by the parties.”
• \State Farm's provision limiting stacking of UIM coverage to the minimum limits is invalid because it purports to limit the amount of coverage to an amount less than that available on the involved vehicle's policy\
• “Underinsured motorist coverage is controlled by and subject to our underinsured motorist act, and any insurance policy provisions inconsistent therewith are void, and the relevant statutory provisions prevail as if embodied in the policy.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).