Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Moran
Decision Date | 10 July 2013 |
Docket Number | 2013-UP-318 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Employers Insurance of Wausau, Respondent, v. Robert J. Moran and Eric C. Hansen (Defendants), Eric C. Hansen (Third-Party Plaintiff), v. Caldwell Diving Co., Inc. (Third-Party Defendant), Of whom Eric C. Hansen is the Appellant, And Employers Insurance of Wausau and Caldwell Diving Co., Inc., are the Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2008-095691 |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Heard June 3, 2013
Appeal From Georgetown County James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge
Eric C. Hansen, of Tuckerton, N.J., pro se.
Robert W. Achurch, III, and Mary Bass Lohr, both of Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA, of Beaufort, for Respondent Caldwell's Diving Co., Inc.; Pope D. Johnson, III, of Johnson & Barnette, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent Employers Insurance of Wausau.
Employers Insurance of Wausau filed this action against Robert J Moran[1] and Eric C. Hansen, asserting entitlement to funds held in escrow by Moran. Hansen answered counterclaimed, and cross-claimed, asserting, inter alia, entitlement to the funds. Hansen also filed a third-party action against Caldwell's Diving Co., Inc. (Caldwell). Hansen appeals numerous trial court orders including the grant of summary judgment, the grant of a motion to amend an answer, and an order granting dismissal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
As to Issue I: Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248, 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986) ( ).
As to Issue II: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(1) (2005) ( ); Christensen v. Mikell, 324 S.C. 70 73, 476 S.E.2d 692, 694 (1996) (); Davie v. Atkinson, 281 S.C. 102, 103, 313 S.E.2d 648, 649 (Ct. App. 1984) (); Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp., 355 S.C. 361, 375, 585 S.E.2d 292, 299 (2003) ().
As to Issue III: Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 71, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439-40 (2003) ( ); Cox, 290 S.C. at 248, 349 S.E.2d at 94 ( ).
As to Issue IV: Fairchild v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 398 S.C. 90, 108, 727 S.E.2d 407, 416 (2012) ; Rivera v. Newton, 401 S.C. 402, 415, 737 S.E.2d 193, 199 (Ct. App. 2012) ( ).
As to Issue V: Rule 15(a), SCRCP (); Pool v. Pool, 329 S.C. 324, 328-29, 494 S.E.2d 820, 823 (1998) ("The prejudice Rule 15 envisions is a lack of notice that the new issue is going to be tried, and a lack of opportunity to refute it."); Pruitt v. Bowers, 330 S.C. 483, 489, 499 S.E.2d 250, 253 (Ct. App. 1998) ("It is well established that a motion to amend is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and that the party opposing the motion has the burden of establishing prejudice.").
As to Issues VI, VIII, X, & XI: S.C. Const. art. V, § 9 ("The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind the Court of Appeals as precedents."); State v. Cheeks, 400 S.C. 329, 342, 733 S.E.2d 611, 618 (Ct. App. 2012) ( ); Hudson v. Hudson, 290 S.C. 215, 216, 349 S.E.2d 341, 341 (1986) (); Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR ("When a form or other short order or judgment indicates that a more full and complete order or judgment is to follow, a party need not appeal until receipt of written notice of entry of the more complete order or judgment."); Rule 220(c), SCACR ( ); S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-150 (1985) ( ).
As to Issue VII: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(1) (2005) (providing that actions for breach of contract must be commenced within three years); Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458, 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) (); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 632, 576 S.E.2d 156, 166 (2003) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial