(4) the described vehicle must be disposed of by the policyholder or otherwise inoperable at the time of replacement.See, e.g., United Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Elder, 86 Ill.2d 339, 56 Ill.Dec. 47, 49, 427 N.E.2d 127, 129 (1981); Young v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 18 N.C. App. 702, 198 S.E.2d 54, 56, cert. denied 284 N.C. 125, 199 S.E.2d 664 (1973). Courts choose this approach in large part to eschew unstructured inquiries into the intent of the policyholder as to the status of his various vehicles. To be sure, courts using the formalistic approach courts have implied that their criteria serve as proxies for the policyholder's intent to replace or not replace the covered vehicle.
But if the first vehicle is retained, the second is an additional vehicle unless the first is physically inoperable at the time the second vehicle is acquired. ( Young v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1973), 18 N.C. App. 702, 198 S.E.2d 54 (Oldsmobile ambulance became mechanically inoperable and Mercury ambulance to which medical supplies and emergency equipment were transferred held to be a replacement); Filaseta v. Pennsylvania Threshermen Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. (1967), 209 Pa. Super. 332, 228 A.2d 18 (Chevrolet truck held to be replacement for Studebaker truck which broke down on turnpike, was towed to garage and whose load was transferred to the Chevrolet); Merchants Mutual Casualty Co. v. Lambert (1940), 90 N.H. 507, 11 A.2d 361 (1930 Pierce-Arrow was worn out, out of repair, and not fit to be driven on the highway, and a 1937 Pierce-Arrow was held to be its replacement).) If the original vehicle is physically operable, even if it is not licensed, the second vehicle cannot be considered a replacement.
McCutcheon McCutcheon, of Conway, for Appellant, cite: As to the lower Court's having committed errorin finding and holding that the 1972 Chevrolet Nova was areplacement vehicle insured under the terms of the Policy: 242 S.C. 322, 130 S.E.2d 913; 262 S.C. 110, 202 S.E.2d 640; 201 S.E.2d 743; Appleman's Insurance Law and Practice, Vol. 7, § 4293, P. 84; 278 F. Supp. 725. Messrs. Grimes, Hinds Cowan, of Georgetown, and Buist, Moore, Smythe McGee, of Charleston, for Respondents, cite: As to the lower Court's properly finding andholding that the 1972 Chevrolet Nova was a replacementvehicle insured under the terms of the Policy: 262 S.C. 110, 220 S.E.2d 640; 250 N.C. 45, 108 S.E.2d 49; 383 F.2d 145; 7 Am. Jur.2d, Automobile Insurance, § 101; 261 S.C. 595, 201 S.E.2d 743; 198 S.E.2d 54; 475 S.W.2d 418; 465 S.W.2d 32. February 10, 1977.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Shaffer, 250 N.C. 45, 52, 108 S.E.2d 49, 54 (1959). (Accord) Young v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 18 N.C. App. 702, 198 S.E.2d 54, (cert. denied), 284 N.C. 125, 199 S.E.2d 664 (1973).