Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent optometrist Steven Hobbs sublet space leased by Cole Vision Corporation (Cole Vision) from Sears Roebuck and Company (Sears) for his optometry practice. The sublease agreement between Hobbs and Cole Vision contained indemnity provisions whereby Hobbs agreed to defend Cole Vision and Sears against any and all liabilities arising from events occurring in Hobbs' business location or as a result of Hobbs' activities at the business. The agreement also purportedly required Cole Vision to retain copies of Hobbs' patient records. Pursuant to the agreement, Hobbs obtained professional liability insurance with NCMIC Insurance Company (NCMIC). Mary and John Lewis (the Lewises) sued Hobbs, Cole Vision, and Sears based on Hobbs' alleged malpractice in failing to properly diagnose and treat Mary Lewis. Cole Vision and Sears brought this action for declaratory relief after Hobbs and NCMIC refused to defend them in the malpractice suit. Although the Lewises' case was pending when Cole Vision brought this declaratory judgment action, it eventually settled. Cole Vision and Sears also sought judgment against Hobbs and NCMIC for defense costs and settlement amounts of the malpractice action brought by the Lewises. In response to the complaint, Hobbs filed a defense and counterclaim for negligent spoliation of evidence against Cole Vision and Sears stemming from the loss of Mary Lewis's patient profile sheet. Hobbs contended that Cole Vision lost the profile sheet, which was a key piece of evidence needed to defend the malpractice claim. According to Hobbs, he incurred costs and attorney fees as a result of his inability to adequately defend against the Lewises' claim for malpractice. Cole Vision filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that South Carolina does not recognize a cause of action for spoliation of evidence. The circuit court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. Hobbs appealed the circuit court's order and the court of appeals reversed the circuit court, finding that Hobbs pled facts sufficient to constitute a general negligence cause of action. The court of appeals did not determine whether South Carolina recognizes a cause of action for negligent spoliation, instead reversing the circuit court based on its characterization of Hobbs' claim as a general negligence claim. Upon review of the record of the courts below, the Supreme Court found that Hobbs' claim that Cole Vision breached a contractual duty to maintain the document at issue remained a viable defense in his action for indemnification. The Court declined to recognize the tort of negligent spoliation of evidence and accordingly found that the circuit court properly dismissed it as a counterclaim. The Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Cole Vision v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Appellant Liberty Life Insurance Company denied insurance proceeds to Stephen Ney's beneficiary after toxicology reports reflected the presence of methamphetamine in Ney's blood when he was killed in a car accident. Respondent Hutchinson, Ney's daughter and beneficiary, sued Appellant for insurance benefits, arguing that the policy exclusion for injury resulting from an insured being "under the influence of any narcotic" did not apply to Ney's claim, because methamphetamine isn't a narcotic. The circuit court granted Respondent summary judgment on the ground that methamphetamine is not a narcotic within the definition of the policy. In this appeal, Appellant argues that the circuit curt erred in granting summary judgment when the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "narcotic" is understood by laypersons, and that he operative language of the policy, "under the influence of any narcotic" was taken verbatim from the state insurance code. On review of the case, the Supreme Court found Appellant's argument persuasive, and reversed and remanded the case to the lower court for further consideration.

Appellants Hanson Brick America, Inc and Zurich North America appeal the circuit court's order reversing the appellate panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that Respondent Lawson's knee problems were not causally related to his back injury sustained on the job, and the awarding Respondent temporary total disability benefits. Respondent, a fork lift operator, was injured while moving a bag of motor. Diagnosed with degenerative disk disease, Respondent underwent surgery and had bones fused and screws inserted in his spine. Following surgery, Respondent still suffered from back pain; several months later, he developed pain in both knees that affected his ability to walk. Respondent filed a Form 50 with the Commission to report his injuries, and seeking temporary total disability benefits. Appellants challenged Respondent's claim. The Commission's hearing officer ruled that Respondent was entitled to receive temporary total disability benefits, but that the pains in his knees were not a compensible injury. Prior to the Commission's final order, Respondent sought to have newly discovered evidence admitted for the Commission's consideration; Appellants objected, but the commissioner determined that Respondent, in addition to benefits for his back injury, should also receive compensation for his knee pain. On review of the records, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's determination that Lawson was entitled to temporary total disability benefits and further evaluation of his knees, and remand the case back to the appellate panel for reconsideration of all evidence.