reasonable expectations doctrine in South Carolina

2014Finally, the court of appeals refused to adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations, citing Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mangum, 299 S.C. 226, 231 , 383 S.E.2d 464, 466-67 (Ct.App.1989). 2 However, assuming the doctrine applied, the court of appeals stated that because the doctrine cannot be reconciled with the rule that unambiguous insurance policies are subject to the traditional rules of contract construction, this court is precluded from adopting the doctrine, as “[s]uch a departure from jurisprudence must be left to our supreme court.” Id.

2014Finally, the court of appeals refused to adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations, citing Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mangum, 299 S.C. 226, 231 , 383 S.E.2d 464, 466-67 (Ct.App.1989). 2 However, assuming the doctrine applied, the court of appeals stated that because the doctrine cannot be reconciled with the rule that unambiguous insurance policies are subject to the traditional rules of contract construction, this court is precluded from adopting the doctrine, as “[s]uch a departure from jurisprudence must be left to our supreme court.” Id.

2005See Lehrhoff, 638 A.2d at 892 ("[W]e are. . . convinced that reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page cannot be contradicted by the policy's boilerplate . . . ."); Mallane, 658 A.2d at 21 (quoting the above language from Lehrhoff in reliance).

2005See Lehrhoff, 638 A.2d at 892 (“[W]e are ... convinced that reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page cannot be contradicted by the policy’s boilerplate ....”); Mallane, 658 A.2d at 21 (quoting the above language from Lehrhoff in reliance).

2013Ass'n, 365 S.C. 50 , 54, 614 S.E.2d 652 , 654 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The doctrine of reasonable expectations, which is essentially that the objectively reasonable expectations of insureds as to coverage will be honored even though a careful review of the terms of the policy would have shown otherwise, has been rejected in South Carolina." (citing Allstate Ins.

2013Ass'n, 365 S.C. 50 , 54, 614 S.E.2d 652 , 654 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The doctrine of reasonable expectations, which is essentially that the objectively reasonable expectations of insureds as to coverage will be honored even though a careful review of the terms of the policy would have shown otherwise, has been rejected in South Carolina." (citing Allstate Ins.

2013As to Dill's argument the trial court erred in declining to adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations: State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding an issue is not preserved for appeal where one ground is raised below and another ground is raised on appeal); Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.").1 1 Even if we found the issue preserved,

2013As to Dill's argument the trial court erred in declining to adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations: State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding an issue is not preserved for appeal where one ground is raised below and another ground is raised on appeal); Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.").1 1 Even if we found the issue preserved,

2013As to Dill's argument the trial court erred in declining to adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations: State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding an issue is not preserved for appeal where one ground is raised below and another ground is raised on appeal); Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.").1 1 Even if we found the issue preserved,

2013As to Dill's argument the trial court erred in declining to adopt the doctrine of reasonable expectations: State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding an issue is not preserved for appeal where one ground is raised below and another ground is raised on appeal); Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412 , 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.").1 1 Even if we found the issue preserved,

2011Co. , 280 S.C. 69, 71 , 310 S.E.2d 814, 816 (1983); see also United Servs. , 365 S.C. at 54 , 614 S.E.2d at 654 (suggesting that implementation of this rule is the equivalent of rejecting the doctrine of reasonable expectations).

2011Co. , 280 S.C. 69, 71 , 310 S.E.2d 814, 816 (1983); see also United Servs. , 365 S.C. at 54 , 614 S.E.2d at 654 (suggesting that implementation of this rule is the equivalent of rejecting the doctrine of reasonable expectations).

2001Although several jurisdictions have adopted “reasonable expectations” as a guide to the meaning of “oppression,” 21 it has been noted by one commentator that “no court has adopted the reasonable expectations test without the assistance of a statute.” Ralph A. Peeples, The Use and Misuse of the Business Judgment Rule in the Close Corporation, 60 Notre Dame L.Rev. 456, 505 (1985) (hereinafter Peeples). 22 One criticism of the “reasonable expectations” approach is that it “ignores the expectations of the parties other than the dissatisfied shareholder.” See Lerner v. Lerner Corp., 132 Md.App. 32