Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.

The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.

4849 - Rabon v. Arrow Exterminating, Inc.

Arrow Exterminating, Inc. (Arrow) and Twin City Fire Insurance Co. (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the circuit court's order reversing the Appellate Panel and finding that George Rabon was an employee of Arrow and suffered a compensable injury. Appellants argue the court erred in reversing the Appellate Panel because Rabon made a material misrepresentation in his employment application, which vitiated his employment contract with Arrow and barred him from workers' compensation benefits.

4850 - State v, Hinojos

Richard G. Thompson, d/b/a All-Out Bail Bonding (All Out), and Accredited Property and Casualty Insurance (collectively, the Appellants) appeal the trial court's estreatment of Mario Hinojos's bond. The Appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion by modifying Hinojos's bond without proper notice and consent. The Appellants also argue their obligations under the bond were completed at the time of Hinojos's guilty plea. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

7-13-2011 - Opinions

4851 - Davis v, KB Home of SC

In this wrongful termination case, KB Home of South Carolina, Inc. and Jeff Meyer (collectively Appellants) appeal a circuit court judgment denying their motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, Appellants contend the circuit court erred in: (1) determining the validity of an arbitration clause contained in Lonnie Davis's employment application when that threshold determination was arguably for the arbitrator, (2) finding Appellants waived their right to enforce the arbitration clause by actively participating in litigation for eighteen months before seeking to compel arbitration, and (3) finding the alleged arbitration clause to be an unconscionable and unenforceable contract of adhesion. We affirm.

4852 - Stiltner v. USAA Casualty Insurance

In this action to reform an automobile insurance policy to include underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, the Stiltners appeal the grant of summary judgment to USAA, challenging the trial court's finding that rejection of UIM coverage by Mrs. Stiltner, who was not the named insured on the policy, was binding as a matter of law on both herself and Mr. Stiltner, the named insured.

7-20-2011 - Opinions

4853 - Langdale v. Harris Carpets

Gevity/Staff Leasing and its carrier, American Home Assurance, c/o AIG (collectively "Gevity"), appeal the appellate panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission's ("Appellate Panel") order affirming the Workers' Compensation single commissioner's ("single commissioner") award of temporary total disability benefits to David Langdale ("Langdale"). Gevity argues the Appellate Panel erred in affirming the single commissioner's: (1) finding Harris Carpets acted as an agent for Gevity by withholding premiums from Langdale's paycheck; (2) finding the manager of Harris Carpets advised Gevity that Langdale was to be covered under its workers' compensation policy; (3) finding liability should be placed on Gevity as opposed to Harris Carpets and/or the South Carolina Uninsured Employer's Fund to provide workers' compensation coverage for Langdale; (4) finding Gevity failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract and Harris Carpets and Gevity are estopped from denying workers' compensation coverage as a matter of equity; and (5) finding Langdale is currently entitled to temporary total disability benefits. We affirm.

4854 - Ross v. Ross

Jekeithlyn Ross (Wife) appeals a family court order denying her claim for alimony, arguing the family court errred in determining the physical violence and threats of violence by Jimmy Rosss (Husband) did not justify the application of equitable tolling for Wife's claim.

7-27-2011 - Opinions

4855 - Allen v. Pinnacle Healthcare

Robert Gunn, Rick Joyce, and Timothy Gunn (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the master's order finding them jointly and severally liable for Dr. Aaron Allen's unpaid wages, prejudgment interest, and statutory attorney's fees. Appellants argue the master erred in: (1) finding them personally liable to Allen under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (the Act); and (2) awarding damages to Allen.

4856 - State v. Hill

Leon Hill, appeals his convictions for two counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree, and two counts of lewd act upon a child, arguing the trial court erred in (1) denying his motions concerning the jury pool on the grounds that the pool was not random and did not constitute a fair cross section of the community, (2) admitting into evidence a DVD of the child victim's forensic interview where the DVD was admitted into evidence after the child victim left the stand, thereby depriving the defense of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the victim in regard to the making of and content of the DVD statement, (3) allowing the State to question an expert witness regarding the content of the video so as to elicit the expert's opinion that the child had not been coached, (4) denying defense counsel's motion for a mistrial based upon the State's failure to disclose information that constituted impeachment evidence of the State's lead investigator, and (5) charging the jury the victim's testimony need not be corroborated and allowing the State to inform the jury of such where the statement of law was unduly emphasized in the State's opening and closing arguments. We affirm.

4857 - Stevens Aviation v. DynCorp

In this action, DynCorp International LLC (DynCorp) appeals a circuit court's grant of partial summary judgment to Stevens Aviation, Inc. (Stevens) on the interpretation of a contract between DynCorp and Stevens. DynCorp argues the circuit court erred in (1) granting partial summary judgment on grounds not before it; (2) incorporating a prior agreement between Stevens and DynCorp into a later agreement between them; (3) holding the later agreement was an enforceable requirements contract; and (4) ruling on these issues without permitting DynCorp to conduct further discovery. We reverse.