Soil Remediation Co. v. Nu-Way Environmental, Inc., NU-WAY
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | TOAL; FINNEY |
| Citation | 323 S.C. 454,476 S.E.2d 149 |
| Parties | SOIL REMEDIATION COMPANY and Yadkin Brick Company, Inc., Plaintiffs, v.ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Petitioner, v. CAROLINA EASTMAN DIVISION, A DIVISION OF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY and Yeargin, Inc., Third-Party Defendants, Of whom Yeargin, Inc. is Respondent. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 07 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 24477,NU-WAY |
Page 149
v.
NU-WAY ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Petitioner,
v.
CAROLINA EASTMAN DIVISION, A DIVISION OF EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY and Yeargin, Inc., Third-Party Defendants,
Of whom Yeargin, Inc. is Respondent.
Decided Aug. 12, 1996.
Page 150
[323 S.C. 455] Russell T. Burke and W. Leighton Lord, III, both of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, LLP, Columbia, for Petitioner.
Stephen E. Hudson, of Kilpatrick & Cody, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
TOAL, Justice:
We granted Nu-Way Environmental, Inc.'s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that the contract between the disputing parties satisfied[323 S.C. 456] statutory requirements as to arbitration. We affirm in result.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is a contractual dispute between Yeargin, Inc. ("Yeargin") and Nu-Way Environmental, Inc. ("Nu-Way"). Yeargin moved before the circuit court to compel Nu-Way to arbitrate the dispute. The court ruled that the contract between the parties did not require arbitration, because it failed to meet the requirements of S.C.Code Ann. § 15-48-10 (Supp.1995). Yeargin appealed the court's ruling; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the contract satisfied the statutory requirements. Nu-Way petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted.
LAW/ANALYSIS
Nu-Way argues the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the contract between the parties satisfied the requirements of S.C.Code Ann. § 15-48-10.
Section 15-48-10(a) provides:
A written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. Notice that a contract is subject to arbitration pursuant to this chapter shall be typed in underlined capital letters, or rubber-stamped prominently, on the first page of the contract and unless such notice is displayed thereon the contract shall not be subject to arbitration.
(emphasis added). The contract in the present case contained the following laser-printed notice provision at the top of the first page:
THIS SUBCONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15-48-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA (1976).
The Court of Appeals held that the above provision met the statutory requirements of "typed in underlined capital letters, [323 S.C. 457] or rubber-stamped prominently." It reasoned that one of the definitions of "underline" is "to emphasize or cause to stand out," which was met under the present facts through the use of this capitalized notice provision. The opinion further stated that assuming the word "underlined" meant "to draw a line under" would lead to absurd results not intended by the Legislature. The Court of Appeals gave a number of examples which, although eye-catching, would fail the notice standards of section 15-48-10, because they were not underlined, typed on a typewriter, or rubber-stamped. Accordingly, it concluded that form should not be elevated over substance and that the provision in the present contract satisfied the purposes behind
Page 151
S.C.Code Ann. § 15-48-10. We disagree with the analysis of the Court of Appeals.Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning. Paschal v. State of S.C. Election Comm'n, 317 S.C. 434, 454 S.E.2d 890 (1995). The terms of section 15-48-10 are: "Notice that a contract is subject to arbitration ... shall be typed in underlined capital letters, or rubber-stamped prominently, on the first page of the contract and unless such notice is displayed thereon the contract shall not be subject to arbitration." (emphasis added). The terms of the statute are clear; therefore, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning. As Chief Justice Howell observed in his dissent below, "By straining the imagination, even a 'bright line test' can be made to seem hopelessly irreconcilable with practical application. Legislative intent should not fall victim to such an exercise." He further wrote, while "strict construction of this statute may lead to results not intended by contracting parties, it is a matter for the legislature to act upon." We agree with this analysis.
Our conclusion is compelled not only by the unambiguous wording of section 15-48-10, but also by case law, which has strictly construed this provision. See Osteen v. T.E. Cuttino Constr. Co., 315 S.C. 422, 424, 434 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1993) ("It is undisputed that the contract does not conform to the requirements of section 15-48-10(a)." 1 ); Timms v. Greene, 310 [323 S.C. 458] S.C. 469, 472, 427 S.E.2d 642, 643 (1993) (Declaring that "the State Act is clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munoz v. Green Tree Financial Corp., No. 25238.
...Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 343 S.C. 539 (1995); Soil Remediation Co. v. Nu-Way Envtl., Inc., 323 S.C. 454, 476 S.E.2d 149 (1996).489 U.S. 468, 478, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989). Further, the transaction in this case in fact involunder d......
-
Lackey v. Green Tree Financial Corp., No. 2810.
...Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996) (emphasis added); see Soil Remediation v. Nu-Way Envtl., 323 S.C. 454, 476 S.E.2d 149 (1996). A contract, or a clause of a contract, may be attacked at law if it was unconscionable at the time it was made. S.C.......
-
Thornton v. TRIDENT MEDICAL CENTER, No. 3706.
...Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996); Soil Remediation Co. v. Nu-Way Envtl., Inc., 323 S.C. 454, 476 S.E.2d 149 The FAA provides: "A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce t......
-
New Hope Baptist Church v. Paragon, No. 4433.
...involved, the FAA applies and displaces South Carolina's Uniform Arbitration Act.") (citing Soil Remediation Co. v. Nu-Way Envtl., Inc., 323 S.C. 454, 459-60, 476 S.E.2d 149, 152 Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he......
-
Munoz v. Green Tree Financial Corp., No. 25238.
...Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 343 S.C. 539 (1995); Soil Remediation Co. v. Nu-Way Envtl., Inc., 323 S.C. 454, 476 S.E.2d 149 (1996).489 U.S. 468, 478, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989). Further, the transaction in this case in fact involunder d......
-
Lackey v. Green Tree Financial Corp., No. 2810.
...Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996) (emphasis added); see Soil Remediation v. Nu-Way Envtl., 323 S.C. 454, 476 S.E.2d 149 (1996). A contract, or a clause of a contract, may be attacked at law if it was unconscionable at the time it was made. S.C.......
-
Thornton v. TRIDENT MEDICAL CENTER, No. 3706.
...Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996); Soil Remediation Co. v. Nu-Way Envtl., Inc., 323 S.C. 454, 476 S.E.2d 149 The FAA provides: "A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce t......
-
New Hope Baptist Church v. Paragon, No. 4433.
...involved, the FAA applies and displaces South Carolina's Uniform Arbitration Act.") (citing Soil Remediation Co. v. Nu-Way Envtl., Inc., 323 S.C. 454, 459-60, 476 S.E.2d 149, 152 Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he......