THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Violet Geiger, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of J.W. Geiger, deceased, Appellant,
v.
Pardee's Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Inc. and Carrier Corporation, Respondents.
Appeal From Richland County
L. Henry McKellar, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-448
Submitted June 9, 2003 � Filed July
1, 2003��
AFFIRMED
Violet Geiger, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., S. Elizabeth Brosnan, Steven J. Pugh, Everett A. Kendall, II and William O. Sweeney, III, all of Columbia, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: In this action for negligence and breach of express and implied warranties, Violet Geiger, appearing pro se, appeals the circuit court�s grant of summary judgment to Carrier Corporation and Pardee�s Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Inc.� We affirm.
FACTS
In 1986, Geiger and her husband contracted with Pardee�s to install a heating and air conditioning system in their home.� Pardee�s put in a furnace manufactured by Carrier and serviced it at least twice a year thereafter.
In May of 1994, Geiger complained that the system caused dust to accumulate in her house.� In response, Pardee�s installed a �Space Guard High Efficiency Air Filter.�� Geiger continued to complain about the dust, however, alleging that the accumulation worsened after Pardee's put in the new filter.
In December of 1999, Geiger�s husband died of �cardiorespiratory arrest[,] . . . coronary artery disease[,] and . . . obstructive pulmonary disease.�� On February 20, 2000, Geiger initiated this action against Pardee�s and Carrier, alleging negligence, breach of express warranties, and breach of implied warranties.� Among other things, she contended that the air conditioning system manufactured by Carrier and installed by Pardee�s hastened her husband�s death by creating an accumulation of dust in her house.
Pardee�s moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Geiger�s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) her claims failed to state a cause of action; and (3) Pardee�s conduct did not proximately cause Geiger�s alleged damages.� Carrier also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the applicable statute of limitations barred Geiger�s claims and that Geiger failed to present evidence establishing the essential elements of her causes of action.
The circuit court granted the motions on the grounds that Geiger�s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that Geiger had failed to present any evidence establishing the essential elements of her causes of action.� This appeal follows.
ANALYSIS
Geiger asserts the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment, because the action was not barred by the statute of limitations.� Specifically, she argues, �[the circuit court] issued summary judgment of incorrect dates.� I was within the Statute of Limitation. [sic]� This [cause of action] was brought within three years of discovery.�
This argument is not preserved for our review.� It was not addressed in the statement of issues on appeal.� See Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR (�Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal.�) �Moreover, it is conclusory and unsupported by authority.� See Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) (�South Carolina law clearly states that short, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review.�).� Accordingly, this argument has not been preserved.
Geiger�s statement of issues on appeal also presents the following questions:
1.������ Why did my first furnace crack after only ten years?
2.������ Why wouldn�t Pardee�s put another space guard on when I requested him to?
3.������ Why didn�t Pardee�s replace the defective new unit?� No reply from Pardee�s.
4.������ Why didn�t Pardee�s help to clean the hugh [sic] amounts of dust that his defective heating unit caused and damaged everything in my house?
5.������ Why did Pardee�s charge me for parts when he was hunting defects?� Why did he take my good metal duct work, and used [sic] cheap plastic?
6.������ Why didn�t Pardee�s use the correct register duct size, twelve inches, instead of installing another smaller size. [sic]
7.������ Why didn�t Pardee�s have a factory representative inspect the defective furnace system as requested by S.C. Contractor�s Licensing Board?
8.������ Why didn�t Pardee�s use a drawing, as contractors do to fit my home with proper furnace? [sic]
9.������ Why didn�t Pardee�s reply to my many telephone calls and letters. [sic]� Pardee�s did not reply.
10.���� Why didn�t Pardee�s stop the dust storm when he knew of John Geiger�s medical problem?
These issues have also been abandoned.� None of them alleges error on the part of the circuit court.� Furthermore, Geiger fails to make any arguments or provide any authority in support of these questions.� Geiger has thus abandoned this set of issues.��� Glasscock, 348 S.C. at 81, 557 S.E.2d at 691.
Even if the issues were preserved, Geiger�s assertions lack merit.� To fall within the statute of limitations, an action for negligence must be commenced within three years after the person knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that a cause of action existed.� S.C. Code Ann. � 15-3-535 (Supp. 2002); Grillo v. Speedright Prods., Inc., 340 S.C. 498, 502, 532 S.E.2d 1, 3 (Ct. App. 2000).� Geiger should have known she had a cause of action for negligence in May of 1994, when she first complained to Pardee�s about the dust she believed was caused by the system.� However, nearly six years passed before she commenced this lawsuit in February of 2000.� The statute of limitations therefore bars her claim.� Grillo, 340 S.C. at 502, 532 S.E.2d at 3.�
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the decision of the circuit court is
AFFIRMED.
HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and STILWELL, JJ., concur.