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.

28214 - Isaac D. Brailey v. Michelin North America, Inc.

The court of appeals reversed the workers' compensation commission's decision to deny benefits to the claimant on four separate grounds, one of which was the "fraud in the application" defense under Cooper v. McDevitt & Street Co., 260 S.C. 463, 196 S.E.2d 833 (1973). While we affirm the court of appeals on all four points, we question the continued validity of the Cooper test.

28215 - The State v. Adam Rowell

After a jury convicted Adam Rowell of two felony driving under the influence charges, he discovered one of the jurors, Juror 164, had failed to disclose during voir dire that he had recently been arrested. Armed with this information, Rowell included it among other grounds in his motion for a new trial. Juror 164 was not present at the hearing on the new trial motion. After the hearing, Rowell requested another hearing so Juror 164 could be examined. Although the State consented to the request, the circuit court did not hold a second hearing and instead issued a written order denying Rowell a new trial. Rowell appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing with Juror 164. State v. Rowell, 436 S.C. 54, 870 S.E.2d 175 (Ct. App. 2022). We granted certiorari and now reverse.

28216 - Basilides Cruz v. City of Columbia

Petitioners are ten retired City of Columbia firefighters seeking to hold the City to what they contend was a promise to provide them free health insurance for life under a theory of promissory estoppel. The court of appeals held Petitioners were not entitled to relief on their claim. We affirm as modified.

28217 - The State v. Phillip W. Lowery

We reverse in part and affirm in part the court of appeals' decision in State v. Lowery, 436 S.C. 349, 872 S.E.2d 197 (Ct. App. 2022). We hold Lowery's volunteered incriminating statements to a patrol trooper during a DUI stop were admissible. We also hold, under the facts of this case, the absence of Miranda warnings and field sobriety tests on another trooper's dash camera video did not require dismissal of the DUI charge.

28218 - The State v. Nyquan T. Brown

The Court vacates the portion of the court of appeals' opinion concerning the propriety of the inferred malice charge, finding that the trial court erred in charging the jury that "malice can be inferred if one kills another during the commission of a felony." The Court further affirms the court of appeals' decision in result because the erroneous charge could not have affected the verdict and was, therefore, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

28219 - The State v. Montrelle Lamont Campbell

We reverse the decision of the court of appeals in State v. Campbell, 435 S.C. 528, 868 S.E.2d 414 (Ct. App. 2021).

28220 - The State v. Derrick T. Mills

We affirm the court of appeals' decision in result, finding, under the particular facts of this case, no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to recall the jury and accept a verdict after the court declared a mistrial and discharged the jury.

28221 - Covil Corporation v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company

The primary issue in this case is whether the "notice-prejudice rule," which requires an insurer to prove it was prejudiced by untimely notice of a lawsuit, applies when no rights of innocent third parties would be compromised. We hold it does not. In this case, however, we find the insured's failure to provide timely notice was not a material breach of the insurance contract. We affirm as modified the circuit court and court of appeals' decision requiring the insurer provide indemnity despite the lack of timely notice. We also affirm the court of appeals as to whether the summary judgment order was premature and whether two policy exclusions apply.