service made in any other way upon such corporations is invalid.” Murray v. Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., 192 S.C. 101, 108, 5 S.E.2d 560, 562 (1939) (construing predecessor to § 38-5-70). Further, S.C.Code Ann. § 15-9-270 (2005) provides, “The summons and any other legal process in any action or proceeding against [an insurance company] must be served on an insurance company ... by delivering two copies ... to the Director ...” Compliance with this statute “is the proper and exclusive method of obtaining jurisdiction over the insurance company.” Equilease Corp. v. Weathers, 275 S.C. 478, 484, 272 S.E.2d 789, 792 (1980). An action is not commenced unless these statutory mandates are met, and all parties agree they were not complied with here. See also Couch on Insurance § 3:30 (3rd ed.2013) (<HOLDING>). The trial court erred in refusing to set
recognizing south carolina as the governing law and finding no south carolina cases directly on point the court referred to applicable law from other jurisdictions holding jury charge is proper if as a whole it is free from error and reflects the current and correct law of south carolina holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service recognizing south carolina as a jurisdiction where service on statutory agent is exclusive holding that under south carolina law slander is actionable per se where plaintiff is alleged to have committed adultery