Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Clear View Constr., LLC
| Decision Date | 19 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 5343.,Appellate Case No. 2013–001403.,5343. |
| Citation | 776 S.E.2d 426,413 S.C. 615 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STONELEDGE AT LAKE KEOWEE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., C. Dan Carson, Jeffrey J. Dauler, Joan W. Davenport, Michael Furnari, Donna Furnari, Jessy B. Grasso, Nancy E. Grasso, Robert P. Hayes, Lucy H. Hayes, Ty Hix, Jennifer D. Hix, Paul W. Hund, III, Ruth E. Isaac, Michael D. Plourde, Mary Lou Plourde, Carol C. Pope, Steven B. Taylor, Bette J. Taylor, and Robert White, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLEAR VIEW CONSTRUCTION, LLC, IMK Development Co., LLC, Keowee Townhouses, LLC, Ludwig Corporation, LLC, SDI Funding, LLC, Medallion at Keowee, LLC, Bradford D. Seckinger, John Ludwig, Larry D. Lollis, William C. Cox, Integrys Keowee Development, LLC, Marick Home Builders, LLC, M Group Construction and Development, LLC, Bostic Brothers Construction, Inc., Rick Thoennes, Mel Morris, Joe Bostic, Jeff Bostic, Michael Franz, MHC Contractors, Miguel Porras Choncoas, Builders First Source Southeast Group, Mike Green, Southern Concrete Specialties, Carl Compton d/b/a Compton Enterprise a/k/a Compton Enterprises, Gunter Heating & Air, All Pro Heating, A/C & Refrigeration, LLC, Coleman Waterproofing, Heyward Electrical Services, Inc., Tinsley Electrical, LLC, Hutch N Son Construction, Inc., Carl Catoe Construction, Inc., T.G. Construction, LLC, Delfino Construction, Francisco Javier Zarate d/b/a Zarate Construction, Alejandro Avalos Cruz, Herberto Acros Hernandez, Martin Hernandez–Aviles, Francisco Villalobos Lopez, Ambrosio Martinez–Ramirez, Ester Moran Mentado, Socorro Castillo Montel, Upstate Utilities, Inc., Southern Basements, Inc., MJG Construction and Homebuilders, Inc. d/b/a MJG Construction, KMAC, Inc. d/b/a KMAC North Carolina, Eufacio Garcia, Everado Jarmamillio, Garcia Parra Insulation, Inc., J & J Construction, Jose Nino, Jose Manuel Garcia, Eason Construction, Inc., Vincent Morales d/b/a Morales Masonry, and Miller/Player & Associates, Defendants, Of whom Marick Home Builders, LLC and Rick Thoennes are Appellants, and Clear View Construction, LLC and Michael Franz are Respondents. |
Jason Michael Imhoff and Carl Reed Teague, The Ward Law Firm, PA, both of Spartanburg, for appellants.
Robert T. Lyles, Jr., Lyles & Lyles, LLC, of Charleston, and Michael B.T. Wilkes and Ellen S. Cheek, Wilkes Law Firm, PA, both of Spartanburg, all for respondents.
Marick Home Builders, LLC served as one of several general contractors for the construction of townhomes known as Stoneledge at Lake Keowee. The Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owners' Association, Inc. (“Stoneledge”) brought suit against Marick and others alleging construction defects in the townhomes. The circuit court granted summary judgment against Marick on its cross-claim for negligence, finding “Marick's negligence claim is a claim for equitable indemnity.” The circuit court also found Marick's fault required summary judgment on its equitable indemnity claim. We affirm the court's ruling that Marick did not have a separate claim for negligence. However, we find Marick presented a question of fact on its equitable indemnity claim. We reverse the summary judgment on that issue and remand for trial on the equitable indemnity claim.
IMK Development Company developed a lakefront community known as Stoneledge at Lake Keowee. IMK hired Marick as a general contractor for the construction of townhomes in the community, and Marick subcontracted with Clear View Construction, LLC to perform stonework. Rick Thoennes is the principal of Marick.
In 2012, Stoneledge brought this lawsuit seeking damages resulting from construction defects that allowed water into the townhomes. Two of the construction defects alleged by Stoneledge related to the stonework performed by Clear View—“installation of stone below grade and complete lack of flashing at the water table at intersections of differing building components.” Marick denied liability and brought cross-claims for equitable indemnity, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The cross-claim defendants included the respondents Clear View and Michael Franz—Clear View's owner.
Clear View and Franz filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Marick's cross-claims, which the circuit court granted. The court ruled “Marick's negligence claim is a claim for equitable indemnity,” explaining “the allegations and remedies sought by both actions stem directly from the potential liability [Marick] could face for the damages claimed by [Stoneledge].”
The court then considered the only remaining cross-claim against Clear View and Franz—equitable indemnity—and granted summary judgment. The court's decision was premised on its finding that Marick “cannot be adjudged without fault” because it failed to discover building code violations that resulted, in part, from Clear View's faulty installation of stone and failure to install flashing. Based on Marick's fault for not discovering these building code violations, the court concluded Marick's cross-claim “for equitable indemnity must fail.”
The court addressed Marick's claims for breach of contract and breach of warranty in a separate order not at issue in this appeal. Marick filed a motion under Rule 59(e), SCRCP, which the circuit court denied.
Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides the circuit court shall grant summary judgment if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” When the circuit court grants summary judgment on a question of law, we review the ruling de novo. Town of Summerville v. City of N. Charleston, 378 S.C. 107, 110, 662 S.E.2d 40, 41 (2008). “In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences which can reasonably be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Quail Hill, LLC v. Cnty. of Richland, 387 S.C. 223, 235, 692 S.E.2d 499, 505 (2010) (citation omitted). “However, it is not sufficient for a party to create an inference that is not reasonable or an issue of fact that is not genuine.” Town of Hollywood v. Floyd, 403 S.C. 466, 477, 744 S.E.2d 161, 166 (2013).
First, Marick argues its negligence cross-claim is a separate cause of action from its equitable indemnity claim, and thus, the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment.1 We disagree.
“The character of an action is primarily determined by the allegations contained in the complaint.” Seebaldt v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 269 S.C. 691, 692, 239 S.E.2d 726, 727 (1977). The issue Marick raises—whether the circuit court properly interpreted its claim for negligence as a claim for equitable indemnity—requires us to construe its cross-complaint, and thus presents a question of law. See Monteith v. Harby, 190 S.C. 453, 455, 3 S.E.2d 250, 250 (1939) (). We therefore review the circuit court's ruling de novo. Town of Summerville, 378 S.C. at 110, 662 S.E.2d at 41 ; see also Fields v. J. Haynes Waters Builders, Inc., 376 S.C. 545, 564, 658 S.E.2d 80, 90 (2008) ().
In its cross-complaint, Marick alleged Clear View's negligence caused Marick “to incur attorneys' fees, costs, and face potential liability to [Stoneledge].” The cross-complaint also stated, “Should [Stoneledge] prevail on [its] claims, Marick ... is entitled to recover ... legal fees and costs or [any amount it is] ordered to pay to [Stoneledge].” Marick's allegations demonstrate it did not sustain its own damages as a result of any negligence by the respondents. Rather, the allegations show Stoneledge is the party that suffered damages, and Marick's injuries arose exclusively from having to defend itself in Stoneledge's lawsuit. Consequently, the damages Marick seeks to recover resulted only from its potential liability to Stoneledge and from the expenses it incurred defending itself. When pressed at oral argument, Marick's counsel could not identify any damages it claimed in this lawsuit that did not arise exclusively from the claims made by Stoneledge.2
To support the finding that Marick's negligence cross-claim was actually a claim for equitable indemnity, the circuit court relied on two federal district court cases—South Carolina National Bank v. Stone, 749 F.Supp. 1419 (D.S.C.1990) and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Patriot's Point Development Authority, 788 F.Supp. 880 (D.S.C.1992) (USF & G ). In Stone, the defendants asserted cross-claims for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud against codefendants that settled with the plaintiffs. 749 F.Supp. at 1432–33. The district court barred the non-settling defendants from asserting these cross-claims against the settling defendants because it found they were not independent causes of action. 749 F.Supp. at 1433. The court explained the cross-claims arose only if the non-settling defendants were liable to the plaintiffs, and “these purported causes of action are nothing more than claims for ... indemnification with a slight change in wording.” Id.
Similarly, in USF & G, the defendants argued they had “independent claims” against a co-defendant in addition to their claim for indemnification. 788 F.Supp. at 881 n. 1. The district court barred the defendants from bringing these claims, finding “without [the] plaintiffs suing the ... defendants [,] the ‘independent claims' ... would not exist,” and thus “these claims are really nothing more than claims for indemnity.” Id.
We agree with Stone and USF & G and find the reasoning in those decisions applies to this case. Under Marick's own allegations, its negligence cross-claim arose only when it faced potential liability for Stoneledge's damages and incurred fees and costs defending against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BEI-Beach, LLC v. Christman
...I, 413 S.C. at 620, 776 S.E.2d at 429. "When the circuit court grants summary judgment on a question of law, we review the ruling de novo." Id. "In determining whether triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences which can reasonably be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the......
-
Holland v. Hucks Pool Co., Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-00141-RBH
...and (3) Hucks incurred expenses that were necessary to protect its interest in defending against Plaintiff's claim. See Clear View, 413 S.C. at 625, 776 S.E.2d at 432 (listing the elements of equitable indemnity in the general contractor-subcontractor context). "A party opposing a summary j......
-
Reed v. Big Water Resort, LLC
...in causing plaintiffs' damage, Hutson's motion for summary judgment is denied. See Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Clear View Const., LLC, 776 S.E.2d 426, 432 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015) ("[W]e find the evidence is conflicting, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable ......
-
Horry Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. South Carolina Public Service Authority
... ... See Morrow Crane Co. v. T.R. Tucker Constr ... Co., 296 S.C. 427, 429, 373 S.E.2d ... See ... Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v ... Ass'n, Inc. v. Clear View Constr., LLC, 413 S.C ... 615, 624, ... ...