In Magnolia North Property Owners' Ass'n v. Heritage Communities, Inc., a condominium property owners' association sued related companies (Heritage Communities, Inc., Heritage Magnolia North, Inc., and BuildStar) over alleged construction defects in a Horry County complex, raising claims for negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court directed a verdict for the POA on liability for negligence and breach of the warranty of workmanlike services; the jury then awarded $6.5 million in actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial evidence supported a finding of corporate amalgamation that blurred the entities' legal distinctions (following Kincaid v. Landing Development Corp.), that evidence of defects at other Heritage projects was admissible as relevant to awareness and duration of conduct, and that the directed verdicts, denial of JNOV, jury instructions, and punitive award (after post-trial review) were all properly supported by the record.
In Roof v. Steele, ex-husband Kenneth Steele appealed a family court order that modified his alimony obligation to his former wife, Yancey Roof, and awarded her attorney’s fees after his employer discontinued dependent health coverage for ex-spouses. The divorce decree had required Steele to pay Roof $300 monthly plus her health insurance premiums through his group policy; when that coverage ended, Roof faced sharply higher costs under COBRA and later the state insurance pool, prompting her to seek modification based on a substantial change in circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed the modification of alimony, holding that the loss of affordable coverage and the resulting unquantifiable increase in expenses qualified as a substantial change even if the possibility of lost coverage was foreseeable at divorce, and it applied the same modification standard used for contested orders rather than a stricter one for agreed decrees. The court reversed in part on other issues, including aspects of the fee award and the precise scope of the modified obligation, and remanded for further proceedings.
In Burris v. Propst Lumber & Logging, Inc., the South Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed a workers’ compensation dispute in which Employer Propst challenged the Appellate Panel’s finding that its policy with Carrier Capital City Insurance provided no coverage for Claimant Everett Burris’s November 5, 2007 workplace injury. The court affirmed the Panel, holding that the policy had lapsed from October 10 through November 26, 2007, leaving Employer directly liable for benefits. It reasoned that the Assigned Risk Supplement authorized Carrier to endorse the 2007–08 policy with an additional premium calculated from the prior year’s audit, that nonpayment of the endorsed amount justified cancellation under the policy terms and NCCI rules, and that Employer’s partial payments after the cancellation date did not restore coverage until full payment was received and the policy was reinstated.
In Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, the case concerned an appeal by employer Team IA from a circuit court order granting partial summary judgment to former employee Cicero Lucas on the grounds that the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in his 2001 employment agreement were overly broad and unenforceable as a restraint on trade. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court should have applied South Carolina law pursuant to the agreement’s choice-of-law provision rather than Georgia law, and that summary judgment was improper because material facts remained in dispute regarding Lucas’s assigned territory and contacts with customers or prospects. The court reasoned that further factual development was required to determine whether the agreement’s alternative territorial restriction (limited to South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama) was reasonable, while also directing the circuit court to rule on a pending motion to strike a supplemental affidavit and to evaluate the non-solicitation clause under South Carolina law.
In State v. Singleton, Eugene Singleton was convicted of first-degree burglary and criminal conspiracy following a trial in which the victim identified him in court as the first intruder who entered her home during an armed robbery, and two accomplices also testified against him. Singleton appealed, claiming the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s in-court identification despite inconsistencies in her prior statements and by permitting a reply witness to testify despite violating a sequestration order. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the identification was admissible because it rested on the victim’s personal knowledge and prior familiarity with Singleton, with any inconsistencies affecting only credibility for the jury to weigh. The court also upheld the reply testimony, noting that sequestration is not an absolute right, the witness’s limited rebuttal evidence directly contradicted defense claims about jewelry ownership, and defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine her about any violation.
This case involves a breach of contract dispute between V.E. Amick & Associates, LLC (Amick), a DHEC-certified environmental remediation company, and Palmetto Environmental Group, Inc. (Palmetto), a subcontractor hired to perform groundwater remediation on three sites. After Palmetto stopped work before completing the projects, Amick hired another firm to finish the work and sued Palmetto for damages. The trial court denied Palmetto's motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed these decisions. The court reasoned that Palmetto's performance was not excused by Amick's alleged failure to hire a qualified engineer because DHEC accepted the work and payments were made, and the jury's damage award was supported by evidence accounting for future payments without needing further offset.