Hammond v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22401,22401 |
| Citation | 287 S.C. 200,336 S.E.2d 867 |
| Parties | Hollis M. HAMMOND, Respondent, v. CUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY, INC.; Cummins Carolinas, Inc.; Mariner Services, Inc.; # 1 Boat Mfg., Inc.; Thomas B. Palmer; and Cummins Florida, Inc., Defendants, of whom Cummins Florida, Inc. is Appellant. Appeal of CUMMINS FLORIDA, INC. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
O. Terry Beverly, of Green, Sasser & Beverly, Conway, for appellant.
John E. Batten, III, Surfside Beach, for respondent.
Appellant, Cummins Florida, Inc., (Cummins Florida) along with five other defendants, was sued by the respondent, Hollis M. Hammond (Hammond), who was seeking to recover under three causes of action; the gravamen of the complaint being the failure of a motor to live up to its warranties. Prior to the matter being submitted to the jury, all defendants except Cummins Florida were removed from the action. Cummins Florida filed a Notice of Special Appearance to contest jurisdiction of the South Carolina court and, likewise, filed a demurrer alleging misjoinder of the causes of actions. Cummins Florida has appealed to this court from the trial court's denial of the defendant's special appearance, refusal to grant defendant's demurrer and other trial errors. We affirm.
In 1980 while he was in Florida, Hammond, a citizen and resident of South Carolina, purchased a boat from # 1 Boat Manufacturers. This boat, "Last Chance," contained an engine which had been rebuilt by Cummins Florida at their Florida facilities and sold in Florida to # 1 Boat Manufacturers. After Hammond returned to South Carolina and began using "Last Chance" in his commercial fishing business, he experienced problems with its engine. The initial problems were resolved under the warranty of Cummins Florida by work which was performed by Cummins Carolinas in December of 1980. According to the testimony of Cummins Florida employees, they instructed Cummins Carolinas to repair the engine and issued a purchase order to that effect. Cummins Carolinas is a corporation doing business in North Carolina and South Carolina and is a franchise distributor for Cummins Engine Company, Inc., as is Cummins Florida. According to the testimony, all Cummins distributors have a reciprocal warranty agreement to make repairs for customers of other Cummins distributors.
In January, 1981, Hammond experienced additional problems, which resulted in the engine being removed from the hull and sent to Cummins Carolinas' facilities in Charleston for a complete inspection. Mr. Cooley, of Cummins Carolinas, and Mr. Coombs, Regional Representative for Cummins Engine Company, Inc., both testified that they examined the engine at Cummins Florida's request and determined that the damage to the engine had been caused by customer misuse. They each stated that they were of the opinion that the damage was not covered by warranty, but that Cummins Florida made the final decision to disallow the claim. It was this decision that led to the institution of this action. At trial, the jury returned a general verdict against Cummins Florida in the amount of Forty-five Thousand ($45,000.00) Dollars on Hammond's first cause of action for breach of implied and express warranty.
Prior to trial, the circuit court judge denied Cummins Florida's special appearance to contest jurisdiction. Appeal from that order was stayed by this court on September 15, 1983, pending a trial on the merits.
It is Cummins Florida's contention that it does not have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of South Carolina to allow our courts to exercise in personam jurisdiction over it. The lower court disagreed, finding that this dispute was properly before the court. South Carolina's exercise of jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is controlled by the provisions of Section 36-2-803, South Carolina Code (1976). This section is known as South Carolina's "long-arm statute" and reads, in part, as follows:
(1) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent as to a cause of action arising from the person's
(a) transacting any business in this state;
(b) contracting to supply services or things in the state;
* * *
* * *
(g) entry into a contract to be performed in whole or in part by either party in this state; or
(h) production, manufacture, or distribution of goods with the reasonable expectation that those goods are to be used or consumed in this state and are so used or consumed.
Our state has extended jurisdiction to the furthest limits permissible under the statute, Triplett v. R. M. Wade And Co., 261 S.C. 419, 200 S.E.2d 375 (1973). However, the exercise of jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant must not violate the standards of fair play and substantial justice required for due process under International Shoe Co., v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). In Parker v. Williams And Madjanik, Inc., 270 S.C. 570, 243 S.E.2d 451 (1980), this court recognized that a state may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant on the basis of a single transaction as long as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moosally v. WW Norton & Co., Inc.
...evidence or influenced by an error of law. Engineered Prods., 262 S.C. at 4, 201 S.E.2d at 922; see also Hammond v. Cummins Engine Co., 287 S.C. 200, 336 S.E.2d 867 (1985) (stating that this Court is bound by Circuit Court's finding that nonresident defendant is subject to its jurisdiction ......
-
Garrison Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. No. 1 Steel Prods., Inc. (Ex parte No. 1 Steel Prods., Inc.) , 1091781.
...consisting of purchase of computer equipment was sufficient minimum contact to support jurisdiction); Hammond v. Cummins Engine Co., 287 S.C. 200, 336 S.E.2d 867 (1985) (purchase of boat engine by South Carolina buyer created sufficient contacts with out-of-state engine manufacturer to esta......
-
ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc.
...Clause. See Southern Plastics Co. v. Southern Commerce Bank, 310 S.C. 256, 423 S.E.2d 128, 130 (1992); Hammond v. Cummins Engine Co., 287 S.C. 200, 336 S.E.2d 867, 868 (1985); Triplett v. R.M. Wade & Co., 261 S.C. 419, 200 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1973); see also Federal Ins. Co. v. Lake Shore, Inc......
-
Hidria, USA, Inc. v. Delo
...of the due process clause. See, e.g., Meyer v. Paschal, 330 S.C. 175, 181, 498 S.E.2d 635, 638 (1998) ; Hammond v. Cummins Engine Co., 287 S.C. 200, 203, 336 S.E.2d 867, 868 (1985) ; see also Cozi Invs. v. Schneider, 272 S.C. 354, 358, 252 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1979) (stating "South Carolina's L......
-
South Carolina's Mysterious Sometimes-disappearing Long-arm Statute
...1989) ("Application of the long-arm statute is subject to the bounds of due process.") (emphasis added); Hammond v. Cummins Engine Co., 336 S.E.2d 867, 868 (S.C. 1985) ("Our state has extended jurisdiction to the furthest limits permissible under the statute ...") (emphasis added). [36] See......