Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp., II
| Decision Date | 01 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 23819,23819 |
| Parties | Christopher DOWLING and Flor Maria Dowling, Respondents, v. HOME BUYERS WARRANTY CORPORATION, II, a Colorado Corporation, Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Miller and Robert A. Patterson, both of Barnwell, Whaley, Patterson & Helms, Charleston, for appellant.
J. McCutchen Stuckey, Mt. Pleasant, for respondents.
A jury awarded Christopher and Flor Maria Dowling (Dowlings) actual damages for breach of contract and punitive damages for bad faith refusal to settle an insurance claim against Home Buyers Warranty Corporation, II (HBW). HBW appeals the denial of several motions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
In June 1987, the Dowlings bought a home in Charleston accompanied by an insurance-backed Home Buyers Warranty (Warranty) from HBW. In September 1987, heavy rainfall severely flooded the Dowlings' lot, causing water to rise to within inches of their home. In more recent years, water has actually entered the structure during periods of extensive rain.
Shortly after the initial flood, the Dowlings learned that their home was built only 9.92 feet above sea level in violation of F.E.M.A. regulations which require a minimum elevation of 12 feet. On September 16, 1987, the Dowlings, through their attorney, notified HBW and the builder of the defect and requested that it be corrected. HBW advised the Dowlings that it would act only if the builder were "unable or unwilling to remedy a defect that is covered by our warranty," and asked that the builder be given thirty to sixty days to respond. On January 26, 1988, having received no response from the builder, the Dowlings filed a complaint with HBW as required by the Warranty. HBW responded that the problem was not covered by the Warranty and advised the Dowlings that they could elect to arbitrate the coverage dispute as provided in the Warranty. The Dowlings agreed to participate in non-binding arbitration.
An arbitration hearing was held at the Dowlings' home on May 2, 1988, during which the builder conceded that the home was not properly elevated. On May 12, the arbitrator found the home "uninhabitable and unmarketable," but concluded that the builder was not responsible and, therefore, awarded nothing to the Dowlings. The Dowlings rejected the arbitrator's decision on May 17 and notified HBW that they would file suit if the award were not reversed within 15 days. On November 3, the Dowlings forwarded a proposed Complaint to HBW and encouraged further negotiations to settle the dispute and avoid litigation. When HBW did not respond, the Dowlings filed suit, alleging breach of contract and bad faith refusal to settle an insurance claim.
HBW moved for and was granted summary judgment on the bad faith cause of action. The Dowlings appealed and we reversed, holding that the facts presented a dispute regarding the existence of a reasonable basis for denying the Dowlings' claim. Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corporation, II, 303 S.C. 295, 400 S.E.2d 143 (1991). On remand, a jury awarded the Dowlings actual damages of $60,150.00 for breach of contract and $100,000.00 punitive damages for bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. Actual damages were not awarded on the bad faith cause of action. HBW appealed.
As a threshold matter, HBW contends that the Dowlings' suit is barred by binding arbitration because the Dowlings failed to vacate the award in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 12 (1987). We disagree.
The Federal Arbitration Act recognizes that arbitration is strictly a matter of contract and that the parties to an arbitration agreement are at liberty to choose the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co.
...only to show proof of actual harm); Schecter v. Watkins, 395 Pa.Super. 363, 577 A.2d 585, 595 (1990); Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp., ___ S.C. ___, 428 S.E.2d 709, 711 (S.C.1993); Solomon v. First Am. Nat'l Bank of Nashville, 774 S.W.2d 935, 943 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989); Atkin Wright & Mil......
-
McKee v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. II
...arbitration rules, but finding that AAA rules in force at the time did not allow for entry of judgment); cf. Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. II, 428 S.E.2d 709 (S.C.1993) (finding that there was no agreement to arbitrate where the Arbitration Acknowledgement and correspondence from th......
-
Palmetto Homes, Inc. v. Bradley
...arbitration. Thus, we analyze whether service of process was effected pursuant to the AAA rules. See Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. II, 311 S.C. 233, 236, 428 S.E.2d 709, 710 (1993) (holding an agreement to arbitrate is a contract, and the parties are free to determine its terms); se......
-
Mendelsohn v. Whitfield
...and conversion as a matter of fact, Whitfield could not recover punitive damages on those claims. See Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp., --- S.C. ----, 428 S.E.2d 709 (S.C.Sup.Ct.1993); Duke v. Parker, 125 S.C. 442, 118 S.E. 802 (1923); Cook v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 183 S.C. 279, ......
-
When Is an “arbitration” Not an Arbitration?
...684 (6th Or. 2012). [37] Rainwater v. Nat'l Home Ins. Co., 944 F.2d 190 (4th Or. 1991). [38] Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. II, 428 S.E.2d 709 (S.O 1993). [39] Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 621 F.Supp. 456 (E.D.NY1985). [40] Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Or. 2003). [41] Wotsey v. ......