Bristol West Preferred Insurance Company v. Lemore Young, James E. Young

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

Bristol West Preferred Insurance Company, Respondent,

v.

Lemore Young, James E. Young, Darius Jerard Allen and
Latusa Nicole Reid, Defendants,

Of Whom Janice A. Fisher as Personal Representative for
Lemore Young is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001644

Appeal From Greenville County
Alex Kinlaw, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-004
Submitted November 1, 2022 – Filed January 4, 2023

AFFIRMED

Brian T. Smith, of Brian T. Smith Law Offices, of
Greenville, for Appellant.

Langdon Cheves, III, of Willson Jones Carter & Baxley,
P.A., of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Bristol West Preferred Insurance Company (Bristol) filed this
declaratory judgment action against Lemore Young, James E. Young, Darius
Jerard Allen, and Latusa Nicole Reid, seeking a declaration of rights under an
automobile insurance policy issued to James. Janice A. Fisher, as the personal
representative for Lemore, appeals the circuit court's order, arguing the court erred
in (1) finding the policy did not provide uninsured motorist (UM) coverage; (2)
concluding the policy should not be reformed to provide UM coverage based on
law or public policy; and (3) interpreting Michigan's mandatory Personal Injury
Protection (PIP). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.1

1. We find the circuit court did not err in finding the policy did not provide UM
coverage and did not err in declining to reform the policy to include UM coverage
based on law. 2 See S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-150(A) (2015) (providing mandatory
UM coverage in South Carolina); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 56-9-10 to -630 (2018)
(codifying the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act (MVFRA)); Williams v.
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. (GEICO), 409 S.C. 586, 599, 762 S.E.2d 705, 712 (2014)
(explaining the MVFRA "requires insurance for the benefit of the public"); S.
Home Ins. Co. v. Burdette's Leasing Serv., Inc., 268 S.C. 472, 475, 234 S.E.2d 870,
871 (1977) (stating the MVFRA "provides the means by which a motor vehicle
owner may prove his ability to respond to a judgment"); Newton v. Progressive
Nw. Ins. Co., 347 S.C. 271, 273–77, 554 S.E.2d 437, 438–40 (Ct. App. 2001)
(finding an insurance policy issued in Georgia did not provide UM coverage for an
automobile accident in South Carolina where the insured validly rejected UM
coverage, which was optional in Georgia); id. at 277, 554 S.E.2d at 440 (finding
our UM statute, section 38-77-150, does not affect policies issued in other states);
id. (finding South Carolina's financial responsibility law did not require
reformation of Newton's policy); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. M & T Enters. of Mt.
Pleasant, LLC, 379 S.C. 645, 655, 667 S.E.2d 7, 13 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Where an
agreement is clear and capable of legal construction, the court's only function is to
interpret its lawful meaning and the intention of the parties as found within the
agreement and give effect to it. We are without authority to alter an unambiguous
contract by construction or to make new contracts for the parties." (internal citation
omitted)). As to the argument that the policy should be reformed based on public
policy, Fisher argued only that UM statutes should be liberally construed and "[i]t
would . . . serve public policy [to ensure] that more passengers are covered by
insurance policies and protected from risk." We find Fisher abandoned the
argument by not citing to any authority. See Potter v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. 7,

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
2
We combine the first two issues.
395 S.C. 17, 24, 716 S.E.2d 123, 127 (Ct. App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed
abandoned if the argument in the brief is not supported by authority or is only
conclusory.").

2. As to Fisher's argument that the circuit court erred in misinterpreting
Michigan law by not finding Michigan's PIP coverage applied, we find the issue is
not preserved for appellate review. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76,
497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial
judge to be preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.