• 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.

Youmans ex rel. Elmore v. S.C. Dep’t of Transportation, 380 S.C. 263, 670 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 2008).
Opinion No. 4437, decided September 24, 2008.
Practice Areas: Litigation

A teenage driver was killed in a single vehicle accident in Allendale County. His mother brought wrongful death and survival actions against the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), alleging that poor road conditions caused the accident. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated for 45 minutes and returned verdicts for the plaintiff of $2 million on the survival claim and $9 million on the wrongful death claim. The trial judge reduced the verdicts to $300,000 each pursuant to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, for a total judgment of $600,000. Ten months later, the trial judge granted SCDOT’s motion for a new trial under the Thirteenth Juror doctrine, based primarily on his determination that the jury could not have fully deliberated the case in 45 minutes. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the brevity of jury deliberations is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to grant a new trial. Therefore, the court reinstated the $600,000 judgment against SCDOT.

Ex parte Bland, 380 S.C. 1, 667 S.E.2d 540 (2008).
Opinion No. 26547, decided September 22, 2008.
Practice Areas: Legal Malpractice Defense

Through discovery in a legal malpractice case, two attorneys obtained copies of the policy manuals of a large South Carolina law firm. The case eventually settled, and the consent order of dismissal contained strict confidentiality requirements, including that any confidential documents would be returned to the party who produced them, and provided for damages if any party breached the confidentiality agreement. In later litigation against the same law firm, the attorneys realized they had inadvertently retained copies of the law firm’s policy manuals, and they subsequently used the manuals as exhibits in a deposition. The law firm filed a motion to enforce the confidentiality agreement and sought damages and attorneys’ fees from the attorneys. The circuit court denied the motion, but the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that the attorneys clearly violated the confidentiality agreement and were in contempt. The court remanded to the circuit court for an award of damages and attorneys’ fees to the law firm.

Fox v. Moultrie, 379 S.C. 609, 666 S.E.2d 915 (2008).
Opinion No. 26546, decided September 15, 2008.
Practice Areas: Real Estate, Taxation

A foreclosure property which was subject to a federal tax lien was sold in a judicial sale, but the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was not given notice of the sale. The buyer brought this quiet title action in order to obtain clear title of the property. However, the IRS appeared and argued that because it was not notified of the sale pursuant to federal law and because there had been no application to discharge the tax lien, the buyer acquired the property subject to the tax lien. The master-in-equity held that the property was subject to the federal tax lien, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that while the federal lien was subordinated to a county property tax lien, the county lien did not render the federal lien invalid. Thus, the federal lien remained valid and survived the tax sale.

Collins Holding Corp. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 379 S.C. 573, 666 S.E.2d 897 (2008).
Opinion No. 26544, decided September 8, 2008.
Practice Areas: Insurance Coverage

An insured was sued by plaintiffs who alleged harm caused by gambling machines. The insurer denied coverage for the claim and refused to defend the insured, who subsequently hired private counsel and settled the lawsuit. Subsequently, the insured brought this declaratory judgment action seeking an order determining that the insurer breached its duty to defend. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the insured, but the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed. The court found that because the complaint alleged systematic, intentional, and fraudulent violations of South Carolina gambling laws, the allegations constituted intentional, deliberate acts which could not be construed as accidental in nature and which therefore were not “occurrences” under the insurance policy. The court further held that even though the underlying plaintiffs had also alleged negligent misrepresentation, courts must look beyond the mere label of negligence to determine whether the facts of the complaint support a cause of action for negligent conduct. Because the facts clearly alleged intentional conduct, the insurer had no duty to defend despite the label of negligence in the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 666 S.E.2d 901 (2008).
Opinion No. 26542, decided September 8, 2008.
Practice Areas: Hospital & Medical Malpractice Defense, Personal Injury

A widow filed suit against a gastroenterologist alleging several causes of action, including negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, based on the doctor’s alleged failure to file Medicare claims for her deceased husband. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment on those causes of action, and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that even though the widow characterized her claims as state common law claims, they were “inextricably intertwined” with the doctor’s alleged failure to comply with the federal Medicare Act. Therefore, because the federal law did not allow a private right of action, the widow’s claim was not cognizable on state common law grounds.

In re Campbell, 379 S.C. 593, 666 S.E.2d 908 (2008).
Opinion No. 26540, decided September 8, 2008.
Practice Areas: Probate Law

A daughter petitioned to be appointed conservator of her mother’s assets, alleging that her mother was no longer mentally capable of caring for her assets. The probate court appointed two doctors, both of whom the mother had previously designated as expert witnesses, as examiners for the mother. The doctors found the mother to be competent, and the probate court held as a result that there was no need to appoint a conservator. The circuit court reversed the probate court’s order, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Probate Code implicitly requires that doctors examining a person’s capacity to handle his or her own affairs must be “disinterested.” However, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that it was error to read into the statute an overriding requirement that court-appointed examiners be disinterested. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the reversal of the probate court’s order on the grounds that the probate court abused its discretion by failing to appoint neutral and objective examiners, finding that while examiners need not necessarily be “disinterested,” they must be “unbiased.”

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.