• 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 recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. Updates are presented chronologically below. To sort by Practice Area, select a Practice Area from the menu at left.

Chassereau v. Global Sun Pools, Inc., 373 S.C. 168, 644 S.E.2d 718 (2007).
Opinion No. 26318, decided April 23, 2007.
Practice Areas: Alternative Dispute Resolution

The plaintiff sued the installer of her above-ground pool for defamation and infliction of emotional distress. The installer moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the financing agreement between the parties. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the case was controlled by the principle pronounced in Aiken v. World Finance Corp. that a party may not be forced to arbitrate claims of illegal or outrageous conduct that no reasonable person would have foreseen at the time the parties executed the arbitration agreement.

Aiken v. World Finance Corp. of South Carolina, 373 S.C. 144, 644 S.E.2d 705 (2007).
Opinion No. 26313, decided April 23, 2007.
Practice Areas: Alternative Dispute Resolution

The plaintiff alleged various causes of action against a finance company alleging misuse of personal finance information he provided in connection with a loan. The finance company moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement the plaintiff signed during the loan process. The South Carolina Supreme Court noted that although arbitration is favored by state and federal law, it is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to arbitrate disputes that he did not agree to arbitrate. Because the plaintiff alleged outrageous torts that were unforeseeable in the context of normal business dealings, his claims were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Bage, LLC v. Southeastern Roofing Co. of Spartanburg, Inc., 373 S.C. 457, 646 S.E.2d 153 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4240, decided April 23, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

The plaintiff, owner of an office building, hired the defendant to re-roof the building. When leaks developed and the defendant failed to fix them, the owner sued and enlisted a process server to serve the complaint. When the process server arrived at the defendant’s office, the manager was not present, but instructed another employee over the phone to accept service. The defendant never filed an answer and judgment was entered by default. The defendant argued that service was improper because the employee who accepted service was not an authorized agent of the company. The South Carolina Court of Appeals disagreed and held that service was proper because the employee received express authorization from the defendant’s manager to accept service.

Hopper v. Terry Hunt Const., 373 S.C. 475, 646 S.E.2d 162 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4238, decided April 23, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

A general contractor attempted to transfer liability for a workers’ compensation claim to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The general contractor had requested and received proof of insurance from its subcontractor, but the documentation showed that the subcontractor only had workers’ compensation insurance in Georgia, not South Carolina. The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that in order to transfer liability, S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-415 requires contractors to receive proof of workers’ compensation insurance in South Carolina. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the general contractor knew that its subcontractor was insured only in Georgia, the court held that the general contractor had not complied with § 42-1-415 and was not entitled to transfer liability to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund.

Dropkin v. Beachwalk Villas Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 373 S.C. 360, 644 S.E.2d 808 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4236, decided April 16, 2007.
Practice Areas: Personal Injury

The plaintiff was injured when she fell down a staircase outside of a condominium unit owned by the defendant. She claimed she was entitled to a directed verdict because the defendant was negligent per se when it failed to comply with standard building codes regarding staircase handrails. The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the denial of the directed verdict because the defendant’s violation of the building codes did not end the negligence analysis; the violation must also have proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. Because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the violation of the building codes did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injury, it upheld the jury’s defense verdict.

Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Sanders, 373 S.C. 349, 644 S.E.2d 802 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4234, decided April 16, 2007.
Practice Areas: Real Estate

The owners of property defaulted on their mortgage payments and the bank sought foreclosure, specifically demanding the right to a deficiency judgment. At the foreclosure sale, the bank’s bidder made a mistake and the property was sold to a third party. The bank moved to set aside the sale, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the denial of the motion because the sale was conducted in a fair manner and the officer making the sale and the third party purchaser did not contribute to the bank’s mistake. Furthermore, the sale price of one-third of the property’s alleged value was not so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court.

Carolina Water Service, Inc. v. Lexington County Joint Mun. Water and Sewer Commission, 373 S.C. 96, 644 S.E.2d 681 (2007).
Opinion No. 26306, decided April 9, 2007.
Practice Areas: Appellate

In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court reiterated that an order granting a stay is not immediately appealable.

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Erwood, 373 S.C. 88, 644 S.E.2d 62 (2007).
Opinion No. 26305, decided April 9, 2007.
Practice Areas: Insurance Coverage

In this declaratory judgment action, the defendant was injured in a motorcycle accident, but the motorcycle, which was owned and driven by her husband at the time of the accident, was uninsured. The defendant sought uninsured motorist coverage (UM) from the policy on another vehicle she owned, but the insurer denied the claim based on a policy provision limiting UM portability. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that because UM, unlike UIM, is mandatory, insurers may not limit the portability of UM coverage.

Burgess v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 373 S.C. 37, 644 S.E.2d 40 (2007).
Opinion No. 26304, decided April 9, 2007.
Practice Areas: Insurance Coverage

In this declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle accident, but the motorcycle was not covered by underinsured motorist insurance (UIM). The plaintiff sought UIM coverage from the policies on three other vehicles he owned, all of which were covered by UIM but were insured by a separate insurance carrier. The insurer denied the claim based on a policy provision limiting UIM portability. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that because vehicle owners have the ability to decide whether to purchase voluntary UIM coverage, insurers may limit the portability of UIM coverage when the insured has a vehicle involved in the accident.

Forrest v. A.S. Price Mechanical, 373 S.C. 303, 644 S.E.2d 784 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4227, decided April 2, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

An injured employee agreed with his employer on monthly workers’ compensation benefits of $490, an amount based on the employee’s wages at the time of the injury. The Workers’ Compensation Commission increased the amount to $532.72 and the employer appealed, claiming that the employee was barred by the doctrines of estoppel and laches from claiming benefits higher than agreed upon and that South Carolina law mandated benefits equal to the employee’s wages. The South Carolina Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. The doctrines of estoppel and laches did not apply because the commission may adjust a claimant’s compensation rate after the filing of the claim. Furthermore, the court found that exceptional circumstances justified deviation from the usual benefits computation method in order to fairly reflect the employee’s lost future earnings.

 

Archives
April 2009
March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009
December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008
September 2008 | August 2008 | July 2008
June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008
March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008
December 2007 | November 2007 | October 2007
September 2007 | August 2007 | July 2007
June 2007 | May 2007 | April 2007
March 2007 | February 2007 | January 2007

 

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.