In a premises liability action, the duty a landowner owes depends on the status assigned to the person upon the property. Generally, South Carolina acknowledges four categories; trespassers, invitees, licensees and children....more
Nearly one year ago, in this space, we addressed the issue of whether South Carolina’s attorney-client privilege was facing its ultimate demise, in the context of insurance bad faith litigation. At that time, based upon an...more
The South Carolina Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (the Act), as we now know it, is nearing the fifteenth year of its infancy, and its application continues to require careful analysis and thoughtful refinement. Most...more
South Carolina Supreme Court Employs Direct Benefits Test -
To those of you kind enough to visit this site regularly – no, you are not seeing double. On December 18, 2018 we addressed the United States District Court’s...more
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently addressed the role of a victim or witness in circumstances giving rise to claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and the consequences thereof, in the matter of...more
In 2001, the developer of a condominium project brought an action against the manufacturer of windows installed in the condominiums, seeking indemnity for liability the developer might incur to the homeowners’ association for...more
Insurers Take Heed: South Carolina Law Does Not Require Apportionment of Punitive Damages -
07.10.18 - In a significant but not entirely novel ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court recently held that South Carolina law...more
The relationship between children and parents continues to change; it takes but a brief, informal look to see glaring examples. For instance, the average age for Americans to marry has risen by four years since 1990. These...more
South Carolina Supreme Court Clarifies Successor Liability -
How to successfully pierce the corporate veil has been shrouded in a degree of mystery in South Carolina, to both those in pursuit of and those defending against...more
How to successfully pierce the corporate veil has been shrouded in a degree of mystery in South Carolina, to both those in pursuit of and those defending against the action. However, our Supreme Court has recently made...more
South Carolina’s attorney-client privilege protects against the disclosure of communications pursuant to which legal advice of any kind is sought by a client from a professional legal adviser, acting in that capacity. At the...more
South Carolina has loosely addressed the amalgamation of interests theory for more than three decades, generally finding that separate corporate entities may be viewed as one if there has been an amalgamation of the corporate...more
In a significant but not entirely novel ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court recently held that South Carolina law does not require the pro rata apportionment of punitive damages between damages sustained for bodily...more
Last week, the South Carolina Supreme Court handed down a monumental opinion; one which, in the words of appellant’s counsel, changes 200 years of common law....more
The Fourth Circuit recently certified this question to the South Carolina Supreme Court in Theodore G. Hartsock, Jr., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sarah Mills Hartsock v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America,...more
Rule 203(b)(1), South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR), requires notice of appeal be served within thirty days after receiving written notice of entry of an order or judgment. While the notice of appeal must be served...more
An automobile insurance carrier in South Carolina must offer underinsured motorist coverage (UIM), at the option of the insured, up to the limits of the insured liability coverage. If the insurer fails to make a meaningful...more
In January, the SC Supreme Court issued its original opinion in Harleysville Group Insurance, a Pennsylvania Corporation v. Heritage Communities, Inc, a South Carolina Corporation; Heritage Magnolia North, Inc., et al. and...more