• 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.

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 376 S.C. 60, 654 S.E.2d 837 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4295, decided September 26, 2007.
Practice Areas: Insurance Coverage

The defendants were injured in an automobile accident with an uninsured driver. While they owned the car in which they were riding, the insurance policy on the vehicle was in the name of one of their parents. The insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage because the policy was void for lack of an insurable interest. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants because it found the insurable interest issue to be irrelevant because the defendants had sought coverage under the uninsured motorist (UM) provision of the policy rather than the liability insurance provisions. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a determination of whether an insurable interest existed. The court held that the issue was not irrelevant because without an insurable interest the policy, including the UM provision, was void at its inception.

Penny Creek Associates, LLC v. Fenwick Tarragon Apartments, LLC, 375 S.C. 267, 651 S.E.2d 617 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4293, decided September 18, 2007.
Practice Areas: Real Estate

In this case, the defendant purchased property from the plaintiff, a developer, for the purpose of constructing an apartment complex. The property was subject to a declaration of covenants and restrictions, which provided that the property could not be subdivided or the boundary lines changed without the permission of the plaintiff. A few years later, the defendant decided to convert the apartment complex into condominiums and the plaintiff subsequently filed this declaratory judgment action seeking an order preventing the defendant from making the conversion without the plaintiff’s permission. The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that the conversion of apartments into condominiums amounts only to the division of the ownership interest in the property and does not amount to subdivision of the underlying lot or modification of the boundary lines. Thus, the court allowed the defendant to proceed with the conversion without the plaintiff’s permission.

South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. v. Hartough, 375 S.C. 541, 654 S.E.2d 87 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4292, decided September 18, 2007.
Practice Areas: Real Estate

In this case, an electric company had an option to purchase a tract of land from the defendant. At the time the option contract was executed, the defendant had no interest in the property, but later acquired an “heir’s share” of the property. The defendant instituted a quiet title action to determine ownership, but the action stalled for various reasons. The electric company filed this declaratory judgment action seeking an order stating that the option remained valid. The defendant argued that the option was invalid under South Carolina law because it had no expiration date, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that the option remained valid so long as it was exercised within a reasonable time. The court found that after the quiet title action was resolved would be within a reasonable time.

Callahan v. Beaufort County School Dist., 375 S.C. 92, 651 S.E.2d 311 (2007).
Opinion No. 26377, decided September 4, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

The plaintiff was exposed to dangerous chemicals at her workplace. She simultaneously sought workers’ compensation benefits and sued a third party for the same injuries, but did not provide notice of the third party action within thirty days as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-560(b). The South Carolina Supreme Court held that strict compliance with the statute is required in order to receive workers’ compensation benefits, but that because the plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed the third party action, her workers’ compensation claim could go forward despite her noncompliance.

 

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.