Ramirez v. Progressive Northern

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

Juan Michael Ramirez, Appellant,

v.

Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000788

Appeal From Laurens County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-280
Submitted March 1, 2016 – Filed June 8, 2016

AFFIRMED

Edwin L. Turnage, of Harris & Graves, PA, of
Greenville, for Appellant.

Bradley Lewis Lanford, of Baker Ravenel & Bender,
LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Moorer, 330 S.C. 46, 60, 496 S.E.2d
875, 883 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Stacking refers to an insured's recovery of damages
under more than one insurance policy in succession until all of his damages are
satisfied or until the total limits of all policies have been exhausted."); Nakatsu v.
Encompass Indem. Co., 390 S.C. 172, 178, 700 S.E.2d 283, 286-87 (Ct. App.
2010) ("Only a Class I insured may stack."); id. at 181, 700 S.E.2d at 288
("[P]ortability refers to a person's ability to use his coverage on a vehicle not
involved in an accident as a basis for recovery of damages sustained in the
accident."); S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-160 (2015) ("If none of the insured's or named
insured's vehicles is involved in the accident, coverage is available only to the
extent of coverage on any one of the vehicles with the excess or underinsured
coverage." (emphasis added)); Brown v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 315 S.C. 393, 395, 434
S.E.2d 270, 271-72 (1993) ("This language clearly restricts stacking by providing
for coverage from 'any one' vehicle.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, A.C.J., and SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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