Connolly v. People's Life Ins. Co. of South Carolina, No. 23066

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 384 S.E.2d 738,299 S.C. 348
• Parties: John M. CONNOLLY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE'S LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. . Heard
• Docket Number: No. 23066
• Decision Date: 06 June 1989

Page 738

384 S.E.2d 738 299 S.C. 348 John M. CONNOLLY, Petitioner,
v.
PEOPLE'S LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. No. 23066. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 6, 1989.
Decided Sept. 25, 1989.

Desa A. Ballard and L. Joel Chastain, both of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Barnwell, and Joseph [299 S.C. 349] G. Wright, III, of Wright & Trammell, Anderson, for petitioner.

Clifford F. Gaddy, Jr., of Foster, Gaddy & Foster, Greenville, John Gregg McMaster and Henry Dargan McMaster, of Tompkins & McMaster, Columbia, for respondent.

Page 739

AMENDED OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the Court on a petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing is denied. Opinion number 23066, filed August 21, 1989, is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted as the opinion of this Court.

This case involves the Court of Appeals' interpretation of certain provisions of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10 to 39-5-160 (1985), in Connolly v. People's Life Ins. Co. of South Carolina, 294 S.C. 355, 364 S.E.2d 475 (Ct.App.1988). We granted certiorari to review the decision and now reverse the Court of Appeals for procedural reasons, holding that it should have declined to address the merits of the UTPA claim as such was not properly presented for review.

FACTS

While a thorough factual recitation may be found in the Court of Appeals' opinion, we summarize the facts as follows: Petitioner Connolly secured a loan from Key Life Insurance Company and gave the company a note and mortgage. When Key Life failed and was placed in liquidation, the liquidator (the South Carolina Chief Insurance Commissioner) took control of Key Life's assets and liabilities. The liquidator later assigned these assets and liabilities, including Connolly's note and mortgage, to Respondent People's Life Insurance Company of South Carolina.

A dispute arose between Connolly and People's Life concerning the balance owed on the note. Connolly claimed the note was paid in full. People's Life acknowledged that Connolly owed no more money on the note, but refused to mark [299 S.C. 350] the mortgage "satisfied and cancelled" until it received its own settlement from the liquidator. People's Life eventually satisfied the mortgage, but not before Connolly's attempt to sell the mortgaged premises had fallen through because he could not deliver clear title to the potential buyer.

Connolly sued People's Life, alleging that the company violated the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by converting his note and mortgage. The jury found that People's Life willfully violated the Unfair Trade Practices Act and awarded Connolly $75,000 actual damages. The trial judge trebled the damages award pursuant to § 39-5-140(a), and People's Life appealed.

The Court of Appeals held that People's Life's directed verdict motions were sufficiently specific to allow the trial judge to understand the grounds for the motions; that the exceptions framed by People's Life on appeal preserved for review the issue of the UTPA's applicability; and that the conversion by People's Life was not the kind of "unfair or deceptive method, act or practice" declared unlawful by the UTPA.

DISCUSSION

I. Trial Motions

First, Connolly contends the Court of Appeals erred in reaching an issue which was not raised or ruled on in the trial court. We agree.

At the close of Connolly's case, counsel for People's Life moved for a directed verdict as follows:

Your honor, with respect to the third cause of action, which alleges an unfair trade practice on the part of People's Life, I ask the Court for a...