Linder v. Insurance Claims Consultants, Inc.
South Carolina Supreme Court
348 S.C. 477, 560 S.E.2d 612 (2002)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
A fire caused significant damages to the Linders’ (plaintiffs) home. While the Linders’ insurance company was adjusting their insurance claim, the Linders hired Insurance Claims Consultants, Inc. (ICC) (defendant), to review their claim. ICC employees were not attorneys. The Linders agreed to pay ICC 10 percent of the total amount they recovered. The Linders’ insurance company initially rejected their claim for the full value of their gun collection. ICC advised the Linders that the gun collection should be covered under the policy and discussed that opinion with the insurance company. Eventually, the insurance company reversed its decision and awarded the Linders the collection’s full value. Upon the resolution of the Linders’ insurance claims, the Linders refused to pay ICC the agreed-upon 10 percent. ICC sued for breach of contract. The Linders sued ICC in the South Carolina Supreme Court for unauthorized practice of law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waller, J.)
Dissent (Pleicones, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
