Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-274 - SC Farm Bureau v. Smith, Gerald

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent,

v.

Gerald J. Smith and Patsy Smith as Guardian and Mother In the interest of: T.T., L.T., and G.T., Appellants.


Appeal From Saluda County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-274
Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 19, 2010


AFFIRMED


Harry L. Goldberg and William R. Padget, both of Columbia, for Appellants.

Carey M. Ayer, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Gerald and Patsy Smith (Insured) appeal the circuit court's order declaring they are not entitled to underinsured motorist coverage for a June 7, 2002 accident because they failed to renew their automobile policy with South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau).  On appeal, Insured argue the circuit court erred in finding Farm Bureau mailed its renewal terms and statement of premium.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Newman, 385 S.C. 187, 191, 684 S.E.2d 541, 543 (2009) (explaining in a declaratory judgment action when the purpose of the underlying dispute is to determine whether coverage exists under an insurance policy, the action is one at law, and this court will not disturb the circuit court's findings of fact unless there is no evidence to reasonably support them); S.C. Code Ann. § 38-75-750(d)(1) (2002) (stating an insurer may satisfy its obligation to furnish renewal terms and statement of premium by "mailing or delivering renewal terms and statement to the insured at his address shown in the policy or, if not reflected therein, at his last known address, not less than thirty days prior to expiration or anniversary").

AFFIRMED.

GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.