• Alternative Dispute Resolution
  
• Appellate
  
• Banking
  
• Bankruptcy
  
• Business Litigation
  
• Church Law
  
• Collections
  
• Construction Law
  
• Contract Law
  
• Corporate Law
  
• Estate Planning
  
• Fidelity & Surety Law
  
• Hospital and Medical
  Malpractice Defense
  
• Insurance Coverage
  
• Landlord - Tenant
  
• Legal Malpractice Defense
  
• Litigation
  
• Mechanic’s Liens
  
• Military Law
  
• Nursing Home Liability Defense
  
• Personal Injury
  
• Premises Liability
  
• Products Liability
  
• Probate Law
  
• Professional Liability
  
• Real Estate
  
• Retirement Plans
  
• Taxation
  
• Workers’ Compensation

This page is a compilation of some of the recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. To check for updates in your area of interest, simply click on the Practice Area to your left.

Construction Law

Sloan v. Dep’t of Transportation, 379 S.C. 160, 666 S.E.2d 236 (2008).
Opinion No. 26534, decided August 25, 2008.

The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) contracted for the widening of a public road in Charleston County, but the contractor failed to complete the work on schedule. In order to have the work completed as quickly as possible, SCDOT terminated its agreement with the contractor for convenience and subsequently entered into a new agreement with a new contractor. However, in entering into the new agreement, SCDOT did not comply with the competitive bidding procedures generally required by state law. SCDOT maintained its actions were justified under the “emergency procurement” provision of the bidding statute. A taxpayer challenged SCDOT’s actions, alleging that no emergency existed which would justify bypassing the competitive bidding requirements. The circuit court granted summary judgment to SCDOT, but the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the plain meaning of the term “emergency” as informed by the state Procurement Code, a sudden, immediate threat to public health, welfare, or safety was required in order to invoke the emergency procurement provision. Therefore, the court held that SCDOT’s emergency procurement was invalid.

Smith v. Breedlove, 377 S.C. 415, 661 S.E.2d 67 (2008).
Opinion No. 26471, decided April 21, 2008.

The defendant, who had never before been in the construction industry, built a home for himself and his family in Hilton Head. He chose not to hire a general contractor, but instead hired an architect and various contractors himself. He was listed as the owner and general contractor on many of the construction documents and paid the service providers directly. Several years after moving into the home, the defendant sold the home to the plaintiff, who later discovered several defects in the home. She brought causes of action for negligence and breach of implied warranty of workmanship. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld summary judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim because the defendant was not a builder in the business of building new homes for sale. The court upheld summary judgment for the defendant on the negligence claim because the defendant built the home for himself and his family alone and did not have a duty to the plaintiff or anyone else with regard to the construction of the home.

Sloan Construction Co. v. Southco Grassing, Inc., 377 S.C. 108, 659 S.E.2d 158 (2008).
Opinion No. 26462, decided March 24, 2008.

A subcontractor on a state highway project sued the South Carolina Department of Transportation for negligence and breach of contract, alleging that the department failed to ensure that the general contractor was properly bonded as required by state law. The trial court granted the department’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Tort Claims Act prohibits subcontractors from bringing negligence claims against government entities for failing to enforce a statute and that the parties were not in contractual privity. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, finding that the department had a duty under the Subcontractors’ and Suppliers’ Payment Protection Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 29-6-210 et seq., to ensure that the appropriate payment bonds were issued in proper form and that the statute created a private right of action by subcontractors to vindicate their rights under the statute whether or not they were in contractual privity with the responsible government agency.

Eldeco, Inc. v. Charleston County School Dist., 372 S.C. 470, 642 S.E.2d 726 (2007).
Opinion No. 26280, decided March 5, 2007.

A subcontractor brought actions for breach of contract against his general contractor and tortious interference against the project owner. The subcontractor alleged that the general contractor breached the contract by not awarding it certain electrical work. The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that there was no breach of contract because the work in question was outside the scope of the definition of “Work” in the contract documents. Additionally, the court held that the subcontractor’s tortious interference claim failed because there was no breach of contract upon which to base the interference claim.

 

Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP makes this information available as a service to its clients and friends. This information is not a solicitation or an effort to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney to determine if it is applicable to a specific legal need.