Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22397,22397 |
| Citation | 287 S.C. 190,336 S.E.2d 472 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3077 John Wendell TODD, Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, and Equifax Services, Inc., Defendants, of whom Equifax Services, Inc. is Respondent. |
Kaye Gorenflo Hearn of Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn & Hearn, Loris; and Terry E. Richardson, Jr., of Platt Fales, Barnwell, for petitioner.
E. Ellison Walker, Columbia, for respondent.
Harold W. Jacobs and James W. Orr, Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, Columbia, for S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
J. Dwight Hudson, John B. McCutcheon, Jr., Conway, for Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
Debora Faulkner, Columbia, for S.C. Legal Services Association; Herbert E. Buhl, III, Columbia, for S.C. Brown Lung Association; Stephen J. Henry, Greenville, for The Workers' Rights Project of the Southerners for Economic Justice; and Robert T. Thompson of Thompson, Mann & Hutson, Greenville, for South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, amici curiae.
This Court granted a Writ of Certiorari to review one issue involved in a Court of Appeals decision which is reported at 283 S.C. 155, 321 S.E.2d 602 (S.C.App.1984). The portion of that opinion which this Court addresses is based upon an error of law and is quashed.
The sole issue before this Court is whether the Court of Appeals in its majority decision exceeded its scope of review by supplanting the jury's findings of fact with its own by ruling as a matter of law that Equifax did not intentionally interfere with Todd's employment contract. We hold that it did. We quash the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals on this issue and reinstate the $50,000 jury verdict against Equifax.
Todd, an insurance agent, was hired under three separate terminable at will contracts by South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Mutual), Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (Casualty), and Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company (Life). Though separate companies, employment with one required employment with the other two, and discharge from one required discharge from the remaining companies.
Due to a suspiciously large number of fires, the claims manager for Mutual and Casualty hired Equifax to investigate for arson. Equifax assigned two of its employees, Parrish and Pope, to the investigation. After several months, Parrish informed Todd and Todd's supervisor that Equifax had learned through an informant that Todd was hindering Equifax's investigation by leaking information to a torch man. Parrish said he wanted to give Todd a voice stress analysis test (PSE). This test, which allegedly determines deception, is illegal in South Carolina. S.C.Code Ann. § 40-53-40 (Law.Co-Op.1976).
Todd agreed to the test and Parrish administered it the next day. The results showed that Todd had "stressed" on several questions, indicating deception. This information was revealed to Todd's boss but not to Todd. Todd was then asked by his employer to take a polygraph test. Todd initially agreed, but later requested that the polygraph test be postponed until his attorney could attend. Todd was informed that he must either take the polygraph test as scheduled or resign. Todd refused to do either. Two days later, Todd received a letter terminating his contract with Mutual, Life, and Casualty effective ten days from the date of the letter.
It became highly doubtful whether Parrish's informant, who allegedly accused Todd of leaking information, ever in fact existed. Parrish initially identified the informant, retracted the identification, then named a police officer. The officer testified at trial that he never told Parrish that Todd was leaking information. From this evidence the jury was entitled to find that the alleged informant was, in fact, a fabrication of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkes v. Young
...v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insur. Co., 283 S.C. 155, 321 S.E.2d 602, 609 (Ct.App.1984), quashed on other grounds, 287 S.C. 190, 336 S.E.2d 472 (1985) (it is for court to determine in the first instance whether defendant's acts were so outrageous as to establish liability for infli......
-
Toney v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 283 S.C. 155, 321 S.E.2d 602, 609 (S.C.Ct.App.1984), quashed on other grounds, 287 S.C. 190, 336 S.E.2d 472 (1985)); see also Barber v. Whirlpool Corp., 34 F.3d 1268, 1276 (4th Cir.1994) (“It is the court's responsibility to first determine as a ......
-
Drs. Steuer & Latham v. Nat. Med. Enterprises
...Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 283 S.C. 155, 321 S.E.2d 602 (1984), reversed on other grounds, 287 S.C. 190, 336 S.E.2d 472 (1985). In fact, South Carolina has explicitly rejected the invitation to recognize such a cause of We think that the limitation on a cau......
-
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co.
...1210, 1214 (1998); Shoup v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 335 Or. 164, 61 P.3d 928, 935 (2003); Todd v. S. Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 287 S.C. 190, 336 S.E.2d 472, 473–74 (1985); Martinmaas v. Engelmann, 612 N.W.2d at 615 (Konenkamp, J, concurring); In re Estate of Gower, No. 01A01–9710–C......