Davis Adv. Sh. No. 12
S.E. 2d

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

Concrete Services, Inc.

and Ann C. Mickle, Plaintiffs,

v.

United States Fidelity

and Guaranty Company, Defendant.

ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT

OF SOUTH CAROLINA

David C. Norton, United States District Court

Judge

Opinion No. 24773

Heard February 2, 1998 - Filed March 23, 1998

CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Robert J. Moran, of Murrells Inlet, for plaintiffs.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Ellis, Lawhorne,

Davidson and Sims, of Columbia, for defendant.

WALLER., A.J.: The following questions have been certified to

this Court by the United States District Court for the District of South

Carolina:

1. Is the spouse of the sole shareholder of a corporation entitled

to stack UIM coverage where the corporation is the "named

p.3


CONCRETE SERVICES, INC., et al. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.

insured" under the policy, and where the spouse was injured

while operating a vehicle owned by the corporation and insured

under the UIM policy?

2. Where the South Carolina Appellate Courts have required an

insured to "have" a vehicle involved in the accident in order to

stack UIM coverage, is it required that the insured own the

vehicle involved in the accident?

FACTS

The plaintiff, Ann Mickle, was involved in an automobile accident while

driving a vehicle owned by her husband's company, Concrete Services, Inc

(Concrete).1 Mickle's damages exceeded the $15,000.00 policy limits of the at

fault driver. At the time of the accident, the vehicle operated by Mickle was

covered by an insurance policy issued by United States Fidelity and Guaranty

(USF&G) to its named insured, Concrete. The policy provided $50,000.00 of

underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) on several vehicles owned by Concrete.

After receiving $50,000.00 in UIM coverage from USF&G under the policy

insuring the vehicle which she was driving, Mickle and Concrete commenced

this declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that Mickle was entitled to

stack UIM coverages on the other vehicles owned by Concrete. The District

Court certified the above questions to this Court.

I. CORPORATION AS "NAMED INSURED"

Whether the spouse of a sole shareholder of a corporation listed as the

"named insured" is entitled to stack UIM benefits is a novel issue in this

state; the issue turns upon whether Mickle qualifies as a Class I insured.

The critical question in determining whether an insured has the right

to stack is whether he is a Class I or Class II insured. American Sec. Ins.</