Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.

The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.

28121 - State Farm v. Myra M. Windham

Respondent Myra Windham was seriously injured while driving a rental car that constituted a temporary substitute vehicle under her State Farm policy. In this declaratory judgment action instituted by Respondent State Farm, we are asked to determine whether Windham can stack her underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage pursuant to section 38-77-160 of the South Carolina Code. The circuit court agreed with State Farm that stacking was prohibited, and the court of appeals reversed. Because both parties offer reasonable interpretations of the policy language, we believe an ambiguity exists, which we construe against the drafter. Accordingly, we agree with the court of appeals that Windham can stack and affirm as modified.

28122 - In the Matter of Christopher G. Jacob, Respondent

In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of a definite suspension of up to six months. We accept the Agreement and suspend Respondent from the practice of law in this state for six months.

28123 - Nathenia J. Rossington v. Julio A. Rossington

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' reversal of the family court's order in this matter. Rossington v. Rossington, Op. No. 2022-UP-025 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Jan. 12, 2022). We grant the petition on Petitioner's Questions 1, 2, and 4 and deny the petition on Petitioner's Question 3. We dispense with briefing, remand this matter to the family court for a trial de novo on the custody issue to ensure the custody determination is based on the current best interests of the child, and direct the family court to revise the award of attorney's fees in light of the new trial on the custody issue.