Opinion · Supreme Court of South Carolina
Buckner v. Preferred Mutual Insurance
255 S.C. 159
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of South Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- South Carolina
- Date
- 1970-11-10
- Topic
- general
holding that an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case | holding that an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case | holding that an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case | stating that an issue which is not challenged on appeal, whether right or wrong, becomes the law of the case | stating that an issue which is not challenged on appeal, whether right or wrong, becomes the law of the case | holding that an unappealed ruling is the law of the case | holding an unchallenged ruling, “right or wrong, is the law of this case and requires affirmance” | holding an unchallenged ruling right or wrong is the law of the case and requires affirmance | stating that an issue which is not challenged on appeal, whether right or wrong, becomes the law of the case | stating that an issue which is not challenged on appeal, whether right or wrong, becomes the law of the case | stating that an issue which is not challenged on appeal, whether right or wrong, becomes the law of the case | holding an unchallenged ruling, "right or wrong, is the law of this case and requires affirmance" | stating that an issue which is not challenged on appeal, whether right or wrong, becomes the law of the case | holding an appellant's failure to challenge a second ground of the trial court's decision required affirmance | holding an unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance | finding that an unchallenged ruling, "right or wrong, is the law of this case and requires affirmance." | holding an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case | holding an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case | holding an unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case | stating an unchallenged ruling, "right or -wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance” | stating an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance | stating an unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of th[e] case and requires affirmance | stating an unchallenged ruling right or wrong, is the law of this case and requires affirmance | stating an unchallenged ruling, “right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance” | finding an unchallenged ruling, “right or wrong, is the law of this case and requires affirmance” | stating an unchallenged ruling, "right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance" | finding an unchallenged ruling, “right or wrong, [was] the law of th[e] case” | an unchallenged ruling, “right or wrong, is the law of this case and requires affirmance.” | an unchallenged ruling, “right or wrong,” is the law of the case | an unchallenged ruling, whether “right or wrong” is the law of the case | an unchallenged ruling, “right or wrong”, is the law of the case | an unchallenged ruling, "right or wrong," is the law of the case | an unchallenged ruling, “right or wrong,” is the law of the case | an unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case | the trial court’s dispositive finding on one ground for its decision, whether right or -wrong, becomes the law of the case and requires affirmance of an appeal if the appellant fails to argue against the finding in its brief
Citator
- Cited by
- 29 opinions
This is an appeal from an order of the lower court holding appellant insurance company liable, under the medical payment provisions of a homeowner’s insurance policy, for expenses incurred as a result of injuries sustained by respondent’s wife while she was leaving the premises of the insured after depositing her child at a nursery school operated there.
The only issue in the lower court was whether coverage was excluded under subsection (h) of the provisions of the policy relating to special exclusions, which denies recovery to any person who is on the premises because of a business conducted thereon. The court held that this attempted exclusion was ineffective because of conflict between sub-section (h) and sub-section (a) (1) of these provisions of the policy, with consequent ambiguity when the two clauses are construed together. The court further held, citing Outlaw v. Calhoun Life Ins. Co., 238 S. C. 199, 119 S. E. (2d) 685 (1961), that sub-section (h) did not exclude recovery because there was no causal connection between the operation of the nursery school and the injury to respondent’s wife, which was incurred after she had deposited her child and was descending the front steps of the insured’s home. The appellant excepted to the court’s first conclusion, but has not excepted to its second ground of decision nor argued against it in the brief. Therefore, the finding below that sub-section *161 (h) does not bar recovery for lack of causal connection, right or wrong, is the law of this case and requires affirmance. It would be pointless to consider the exceptions which do not reach this dispositive finding.
Affirmed.