A young woman had just started a new chapter. She had recently moved to South Carolina from California when, on St. Patrick’s Day, her life ended in a head-on, hit-and-run collision in Greenville County. The driver who caused the crash fled. Her family was left grieving, staring down insurance companies that looked ready to walk away.
On paper, it was a dead end. The car’s liability insurer denied coverage because the car had been stolen, and the young woman carried only a minimum-limits uninsured-motorist policy. David R. Price, Jr., found another path and recovered $1 million for her family.
What Happened
The driver had been staying at an automotive repair shop and took a customer’s car that was in for service. He was driving it, without the owner’s permission, when he crossed the centerline and caused the fatal collision and fled.
That lack of permission mattered. Once the car’s liability carrier learned the driver had no permission to use the vehicle, it denied coverage. Under South Carolina law, that denial of coverage triggered the young woman’s own uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage, which is included in every policy of car insurance sold in South Carolina.
The problem was the size of that coverage. Minimum limits for UM coverage in South Carolina can be as low as $25,000 per person, nowhere near the value of a young woman’s life. To recover full and fair compensation, our team had to pursue the repair shop’s commercial garage liability policy.
The Coverage Problem
Reaching the shop’s policy meant solving two hard legal problems.
First, we had to establish evidence of the elements of negligent supervision. To hold the repair shop responsible, we had to prove that the driver was the repair shop’s employee, and we had to prove that the shop was on notice of his propensity to engage in reckless behavior during the course of his employment. South Carolina’s negligent-supervision law generally allows an employer to assume that its employees will not steal a customer’s car unless the employer had notice that this particular employee might do so. Without proof of both employment and notice, there was no path to holding the shop liable for the young woman’s death.
The second issue was the policy language itself. The garage liability policy arguably required that the car be driven for a repair shop purpose. Fortunately, the leading South Carolina case denying coverage in similar circumstances never quoted the policy language it interpreted, leaving the door open to a more favorable reading.
How David R. Price, Jr. Built the Case
David started by filing suit, which gave him subpoena power. Then, with the public defender’s blessing, he interviewed the driver in jail. Their interests aligned on the question of permission, and the driver explained he came to be driving the car.
What he said changed everything. He explained that he had been staying at the shop and, in exchange for his room and board, he had been cleaning the bathrooms, sweeping the floors, and handling simple oil changes. That made him an employee, not a stranger to the shop. He also revealed that after an earlier arrest, he had called the shop and asked someone to bring hidden money to post his bond. Subpoenaed bond paperwork showed the person who signed was the shop’s manager. That established the shop’s notice of his history and propensity to act illegally.
Regarding the coverage question, David researched the applicable cases in other states across the country, and found a Colorado Supreme Court decision interpreting the same policy language and upholding coverage. The unhelpful South Carolina case, by contrast, never quoted any policy language and so could not be said to definitively apply to the facts of this case. He sent a time-limited, policy-limits demand.
Two days before the deadline, coverage counsel called to debate the merits. David didn’t argue. He simply told coverage counsel that, while the insurance company’s lawyer might be correct that the South Carolina case applied, “The only thing we know for certain is that after 5 p.m. the next day, your client will never receive another chance to settle for the policy limit.” The carrier tendered the next day.
The Result
A $1,050,00.00 million total recovery, combining the uninsured motorist limits and the commercial garage-liability limits. However, past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is different.
At its core, this was an uninsured motorist wrongful death case, and those cases often turn on coverage no one else bothers to chase. This hit-and-run wrongful death settlement came together only because our team refused to accept the first “no” and built a path to a policy others would have missed. For the young woman’s family, it meant accountability where there had almost been none. If your family is facing that same kind of denial, we are ready to help.
Talk to a Greenville Wrongful Death Lawyer
If you have lost someone you love in a hit-and-run or in a crash where the insurance company is denying coverage, don’t assume there is nothing to be done. Whether it is a denied policy, an uninsured driver, or a hidden commercial policy, we know how to dig for coverage others miss.
Contact David R. Price, Jr., P.A. for a free consultation. Call 864-674-1482.
We serve every part of the city of Greenville, including these zip codes: 29601, 29602, 29605, 29606, 29607, 29609, 29611, 29612, 29614, 29615, and 29616. We also proudly serve the rest of the Upstate, including but not limited to Spartanburg, Anderson, Laurens, Pickens, and Oconee Counties.