Joe Adams, Jr. v. Betty Ogbuneke

Appellant Wanda Whetstone was injured in a car accident and filed a claim against the alleged at-fault driver, Karen Campbell. After settling with Campbell individually, Appellant filed a lawsuit against Campbell's employer, the Respondent, under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent, finding Appellant was prohibited from bringing an action under the Tort Claims Act against Campbell's employer after settling with Campbell individually. This appeal followed.

WestPoint Home (WestPoint) appeals an order of the circuit court finding the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) could indefinitely retain the $1.8 million WestPoint deposited as security for potential workers' compensation claims filed by former employees after its predecessor corporation entered bankruptcy. On appeal, WestPoint argues the circuit court erred in finding (1) the Commission was justified in withdrawing the entire deposit and transferring it to an account with the State Treasurer even though the pending claims never equaled the total deposit amount and (2) the Commission could continue to retain the unused portion of the deposit indefinitely even though the statute of repose for new claims had expired. WestPoint also contends it was entitled to collect prejudgment interest. We reverse as to the first two issues and remand for further proceedings regarding the prejudgment interest issue.

Crescent Homes SC, LLC (Crescent) appeals the master-in-equity's determination that a right of first refusal (ROFR) contained in a contract between Crescent and CJN, LLC was unenforceable. Crescent asserts that because no offer to purchase the property was pending at the time of the hearing, the master erred in finding the matter presented a justiciable controversy. It further maintains the master erred in finding the ROFR created an unreasonable restraint on the alienation of an interest in land based on the master's finding the ROFR lacked specific terms. Crescent also contends the master improperly refused to consider evidence of the conduct of the parties. Finally, Crescent argues the master should have addressed whether the ROFR violated the rule against perpetuities (RAP) and if the master determined the ROFR violated the RAP, reformed the ROFR. We affirm.

In this declaratory judgment action, the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (DEW) appeals the circuit court's orders granting judgment in favor of named plaintiffs Archie Patterson and Tammie Bollerman (collectively, Claimants), arguing the circuit court erred by (1) certifying a class, and in the alternative, failing to require a claims made process, (2) declaring DEW was required to promulgate regulations implementing its online work search requirement, and (3) concluding Claimants were not required to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to bringing this action. We reverse.