In Progressive Direct Insurance Co. v. Groves, 882 S.E.2d 464, 2022 (S.C. 2022) rehearing denied (2023), the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trend in coverage regarding deliberate shootings. In Groves, Jimi shot another driver while stopped at a stop light, and then drove away. Two automobile policies were involved which provided UM coverage to the victim. One policy was issued by Progressive and another by USAA. In the ensuing declaratory judgment action, the trial court held that there was no UM coverage under either policy because the shooting failed to arise from the use of the shooter’s vehicle. The trial court decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals and the South Carolina Supreme Court accepted Progressive’s Petition for Review.
There was a long-standing precedent in South Carolina to use a three-prong test for determining when an injury arose from the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured vehicle. Under the three-prong test, for coverage to exist there must be (1) a causal connection between the injury and the uninsured vehicle; (2) an absence of an act of independent significance that drove the chain of causation; and (3) the UM vehicle had to be used for transportation. Conspicuously absent from the three-prong test was any inquiry regarding intentionality. In order to find a causal connection between the injury and the uninsured vehicle, South Carolina law required the claimant to establish that the uninsured vehicle was an active accessory to the injury, that the uninsured vehicle played some role other than being the mere site of the incident, and the injury was foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the uninsured vehicle.
Notwithstanding prior precedent, the Supreme Court reversed course and found that it would be unreasonable to expect coverage under an auto policy for a shooting event which did not arise from the use of a vehicle within the meaning of the first coverage prong. Even if that were the case, the insured would not be able to satisfy the second prong because the intentional shooting would be an act of independent significance, distinct from the use of the vehicle. The Court held that “gunshot injuries do not arise out of the use of an automobile” in no uncertain terms.