economic loss rule in South Carolina

2025See, e.g., Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 379 S.C. 181, 187 , 666 S.E.2d 247, 250 (2008) ("The purpose of the economic loss rule is to define the line between tort and contract recovery."), overruled on other grounds by Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143 , 687 S.E.2d 47 (2009).

2025See, e.g., Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 379 S.C. 181, 187 , 666 S.E.2d 247, 250 (2008) ("The purpose of the economic loss rule is to define the line between tort and contract recovery."), overruled on other grounds by Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143 , 687 S.E.2d 47 (2009).

2023Co., 299 S.C. 335, 345-47 , 384 S.E.2d 730, 736-37 (1989) (holding the economic loss rule does not prevent the imposition of tort liability upon a residential homebuilder when the builder violates a legal duty and that the "violation of a building code" or failure to "undertake construction commensurate with industry standards" violates a builder's legal duty). 5.

2023Co., 299 S.C. 335, 345-47 , 384 S.E.2d 730, 736-37 (1989) (holding the economic loss rule does not prevent the imposition of tort liability upon a residential homebuilder when the builder violates a legal duty and that the "violation of a building code" or failure to "undertake construction commensurate with industry standards" violates a builder's legal duty). 5.

2009Griffin Plumbing & Heating v. Jordan, Jones & Goudding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49 , 55, 463 S.E.2d 85, 88-89 (1995) (finding design professionals, including engineers, may have a duty separate and distinct from contractual duties such that the economic loss doctrine would not prohibit a tort action); Beachwalk Villas Condo.

2009Griffin Plumbing & Heating v. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49 , 55, 463 S.E.2d 85 , 88-89 (1995) (finding design professionals, including engineers, may have a duty separate and distinct from contractual duties such that the economic loss doctrine would not prohibit a tort action); Beachwalk Villas Condo.

2025See, e.g., Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 379 S.C. 181, 187 , 666 S.E.2d 247, 250 (2008) ("The purpose of the economic loss rule is to define the line between tort and contract recovery."), overruled on other grounds by Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143 , 687 S.E.2d 47 (2009).

2025See, e.g., Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 379 S.C. 181, 187 , 666 S.E.2d 247, 250 (2008) ("The purpose of the economic loss rule is to define the line between tort and contract recovery."), overruled on other grounds by Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143 , 687 S.E.2d 47 (2009).

2009Ass'n v. Martin, 305 S.C. 144, 146-47 , 406 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991) (finding a special duty for architects); Lloyd v. Walters, 276 S.C. 223, 226 , 277 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1981) (finding an attorney liable for economic loss to a corporate shareholder when attorney breached a duty to the corporation); but see McCullough v. Goodrich & Pennington Mortgage Fund, Inc., 373 S.C. 43, 53 , 644 S.E.2d 43, 49 (2007) *153 (rejecting the notion of a special duty in the secured transactions arena).

2009Ass'n v. Martin, 305 S.C. 144, 146-47 , 406 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991) (finding a special duty for architects); Lloyd v. Walters, 276 S.C. 223, 226 , 277 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1981) (finding an attorney liable for economic loss to a corporate shareholder when attorney breached a duty to the corporation); but see McCullough v. Goodrich & Pennington Mortgage Fund, Inc., 373 S.C. 43, 53 , 644 S.E.2d 43, 49 (2007) *153 (rejecting the notion of a special duty in the secured transactions arena).

2009Ass'n v. Martin, 305 S.C. 144, 146-47 , 406 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991) (finding a special duty for architects); Lloyd v. Walters, 276 S.C. 223, 226 , 277 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1981) (finding an attorney liable for economic loss to a corporate shareholder when attorney breached a duty to the corporation); but see McCullough v. Goodrich & Pennington Mortgage Fund, Inc., 373 S.C. 43, 53 , 644 S.E.2d 43, 49 (2007) *153 (rejecting the notion of a special duty in the secured transactions arena).

2009Ass'n v. Martin, 305 S.C. 144, 146-47 , 406 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991) (finding a special duty for architects); Lloyd v. Walters, 276 S.C. 223, 226 , 277 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1981) (finding an attorney liable for economic loss to a corporate shareholder when attorney breached a duty to the corporation); but see McCullough v. Goodrich & Pennington Mortgage Fund, Inc., 373 S.C. 43, 53 , 644 S.E.2d 43, 49 (2007) *153 (rejecting the notion of a special duty in the secured transactions arena).

2009Griffin Plumbing & Heating v. Jordan, Jones & Goudding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49 , 55, 463 S.E.2d 85, 88-89 (1995) (finding design professionals, including engineers, may have a duty separate and distinct from contractual duties such that the economic loss doctrine would not prohibit a tort action); Beachwalk Villas Condo.

2009Griffin Plumbing & Heating v. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49 , 55, 463 S.E.2d 85 , 88-89 (1995) (finding design professionals, including engineers, may have a duty separate and distinct from contractual duties such that the economic loss doctrine would not prohibit a tort action); Beachwalk Villas Condo.

2023In Koontz v. Thomas, this court applied the economic loss rule to plaintiff's professional negligence claim against an architectural firm and upheld the circuit court's conclusion that the rule barred such claims because "the alleged breaches of duty in th[at] case [we]re contractual in nature." 333 S.C. 702, 712 , 511 S.E.2d 407, 412 (Ct. App. 1999).

2023In Koontz v. Thomas, this court applied the economic loss rule to plaintiff's professional negligence claim against an architectural firm and upheld the circuit court's conclusion that the rule barred such claims because "the alleged breaches of duty in th[at] case [we]re contractual in nature." 333 S.C. 702, 712 , 511 S.E.2d 407, 412 (Ct. App. 1999).

2023See Burnett v. Family Kingdom, Inc., 387 S.C. 183, 188 , 691 S.E.2d 170, 173 (Ct. App. 2010) ("When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a directed verdict motion, this court will reverse if no evidence supports the trial court's decision or the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); id. ("When reviewing the trial court's decision on a motion for directed verdict, this court must employ the same standard as the trial court by viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143, 147 , 687 S.E.2d 47, 4

2023See Burnett v. Family Kingdom, Inc., 387 S.C. 183, 188 , 691 S.E.2d 170, 173 (Ct. App. 2010) ("When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a directed verdict motion, this court will reverse if no evidence supports the trial court's decision or the ruling is controlled by an error of law."); id. ("When reviewing the trial court's decision on a motion for directed verdict, this court must employ the same standard as the trial court by viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); Sapp v. Ford Motor Co., 386 S.C. 143, 147 , 687 S.E.2d 47, 4

2018See Jones , 387 S.C. at 346 , 692 S.E.2d at 903 ("Under the two[-]issue rule, whe[n] a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); see also Lewis , 398 S.C. at 329 , 730 S.E.2d at 285 ("[A]n unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case.").

2018See Jones , 387 S.C. at 346 , 692 S.E.2d at 903 ("Under the two[-]issue rule, whe[n] a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); see also Lewis , 398 S.C. at 329 , 730 S.E.2d at 285 ("[A]n unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case.").

2018See Jones , 387 S.C. at 346 , 692 S.E.2d at 903 ("Under the two[-]issue rule, whe[n] a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); see also Lewis , 398 S.C. at 329 , 730 S.E.2d at 285 ("[A]n unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case.").

2018See Jones , 387 S.C. at 346 , 692 S.E.2d at 903 ("Under the two[-]issue rule, whe[n] a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); see also Lewis , 398 S.C. at 329 , 730 S.E.2d at 285 ("[A]n unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case.").

2013Co., 381 S.C. 172, 177 , 672 S.E.2d 567, 570 (2009) ("An issue may not be raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider.").

2013Co., 381 S.C. 172, 177 , 672 S.E.2d 567, 570 (2009) ("An issue may not be raised for the first time in a motion to reconsider.").

2013Because the February 23, 2010 order did not take any new action but merely placed in the record evidence of Judge Dennis's intent as it existed on September 3, 2009, Judge Dennis properly directed that the February 23, 2010 order was to take effect "nunc pro tunc." See Ex parte Strom, 343 S.C. 257, 264 , 539 S.E.2d 699, 702-03 (2000) ("Nunc pro tunc orders can only be used to place in the record evidence of judicial action that has actually taken place.

2013Because the February 23, 2010 order did not take any new action but merely placed in the record evidence of Judge Dennis's intent as it existed on September 3, 2009, Judge Dennis properly directed that the February 23, 2010 order was to take effect "nunc pro tunc." See Ex parte Strom, 343 S.C. 257, 264 , 539 S.E.2d 699, 702-03 (2000) ("Nunc pro tunc orders can only be used to place in the record evidence of judicial action that has actually taken place.

2009Russell v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 86, 89 , 406 S.E.2d 338, 339 (1991). *147 LAW/ANALYSIS Appellants argue the trial courts erred in granting summary judgment based on the economic loss rule.

2009Russell v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 86, 89 , 406 S.E.2d 338, 339 (1991). *147 LAW/ANALYSIS Appellants argue the trial courts erred in granting summary judgment based on the economic loss rule.

2008Co., 605 F.Supp. 60, 64 (E.D.Pa.1985) (" PNB ") (noting that while the court was reluctant to rely solely on evidence of damage to other property, the court found Pennsylvania would allow recovery in strict liability because there was also evidence that the defective product posed a serious risk to passers-by); Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., 109 A.D.2d 449 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 371, 376 (N.Y.App.Div.1985) (" Columbia ") (finding that the economic loss rule did not bar recovery, and the codefendants were entitled to contribution from supplier, because a "wall rendered defecti

2008Co., 605 F.Supp. 60, 64 (E.D.Pa.1985) (" PNB ") (noting that while the court was reluctant to rely solely on evidence of damage to other property, the court found Pennsylvania would allow recovery in strict liability because there was also evidence that the defective product posed a serious risk to passers-by); Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., 109 A.D.2d 449 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 371, 376 (N.Y.App.Div.1985) (" Columbia ") (finding that the economic loss rule did not bar recovery, and the codefendants were entitled to contribution from supplier, because a "wall rendered defecti

2008Ass'n v. Martin, 305 S.C. 144, 146-47 , 406 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991) (finding a special duty for architects); Kennedy, 299 S.C. at 347 , 384 S.E.2d at 738 *189 (finding builders owe three legal duties to home buyers beyond the contract); Lloyd v. Walters, 276 S.C. 223, 226 , 277 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1981) (finding an attorney liable for economic loss to a corporate shareholder when attorney breached a duty to the corporation); Georganne Apparel v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92 , 399 S.E.2d 16, 18-19 (Ct.App.1990) (dismissing an accountant malpractice case for failure to prosecute); but see McCullough v. Goo

2008Ass'n v. Martin, 305 S.C. 144, 146-47 , 406 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991) (finding a special duty for architects); Kennedy, 299 S.C. at 347 , 384 S.E.2d at 738 *189 (finding builders owe three legal duties to home buyers beyond the contract); Lloyd v. Walters, 276 S.C. 223, 226 , 277 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1981) (finding an attorney liable for economic loss to a corporate shareholder when attorney breached a duty to the corporation); Georganne Apparel v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92 , 399 S.E.2d 16, 18-19 (Ct.App.1990) (dismissing an accountant malpractice case for failure to prosecute); but see McCullough v. Goo

2008This is not our intent, and we emphasize that the exception applies to serious threats with recovery calculated as the costs to repair or remove the dangerous product. [9] In order to limit situations where the exception applies, we adopt Maryland's balancing test: the nature of the damage threatened and the probability that the damage would occur should be examined to determine whether there is a "clear, serious, *194 and unreasonable risk of death or personal injury." Morris, 667 A.2d at 631-32 ("We examine both the nature of the damage threatened and the probability of damage occurring to d

2008Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 340 Md. 519 , 667 A.2d 624 (1995).

2008Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 869-72 , 106 S.Ct. 2295 , 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986) (rejecting minority economic loss view that manufacturers have a duty to make non-defective products and are liable in tort, whether or not the defect created an unreasonable risk of harm; rejecting the intermediate approach that tort recovery turns on the risk of harm by a defective product; and adopting the majority rule that "a manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under either a negligence or strict products-liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself" in an adm

2008Gissendanner, Tort Recovery for Defective Products Posing a Threat of Bodily Harm: An Exception to the Economic Loss Rule?, 57 S.C.L.Rev. 619, 621-23 (2006) (predicting whether this Court will extend exceptions to the economic loss rule and proposing the damages could be calculated as the costs associated with replacing the defective product). [10] JKT Co., 274 S.C. at 417 , 265 S.E.2d at 512 (stating "[w]e do not believe the doctrine of privity in South Carolina has sufficient vitality to permit its resuscitation by Celotex as a bar to JKT's recovery"). [11] Both Beachwalk Villas Condo.

2008Gissendanner, Tort Recovery for Defective Products Posing a Threat of Bodily Harm: An Exception to the Economic Loss Rule?, 57 S.C.L.Rev. 619, 621-23 (2006) (predicting whether this Court will extend exceptions to the economic loss rule and proposing the damages could be calculated as the costs associated with replacing the defective product). [10] JKT Co., 274 S.C. at 417 , 265 S.E.2d at 512 (stating "[w]e do not believe the doctrine of privity in South Carolina has sufficient vitality to permit its resuscitation by Celotex as a bar to JKT's recovery"). [11] Both Beachwalk Villas Condo.

2008See Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9 , 45 Cal.Rptr. 17 , 403 P.2d 145 (1965).

2008See Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9 , 45 Cal.Rptr. 17 , 403 P.2d 145 (1965).

2008Co., 605 F.Supp. 60, 64 (E.D.Pa.1985) (" PNB ") (noting that while the court was reluctant to rely solely on evidence of damage to other property, the court found Pennsylvania would allow recovery in strict liability because there was also evidence that the defective product posed a serious risk to passers-by); Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., 109 A.D.2d 449 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 371, 376 (N.Y.App.Div.1985) (" Columbia ") (finding that the economic loss rule did not bar recovery, and the codefendants were entitled to contribution from supplier, because a "wall rendered defecti

2008Co., 605 F.Supp. 60, 64 (E.D.Pa.1985) (“PNB ”) (noting that while the court was reluctant to rely solely on evidence of damage to other property, the court found Pennsylvania would allow recovery in strict liability because there was also evidence that the defective product posed a serious risk to passers-by); Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs., 109 A.D.2d 449 , 492 N.Y.S.2d 371, 376 (N.Y.App.Div.1985) (“Columbia ”) (finding that the economic loss rule did not bar recovery, and the codefendants were entitled to contribution from supplier, because a “wall rendered defective

2008Id.; Kershaw County Bd. of Educ. v. United States Gypsum Co., *188 302 S.C. 390, 393 , 396 S.E.2d 369, 371 (1990) (finding the economic loss doctrine did not bar recovery in an asbestos case because the defective product caused harm to "other property," including the rest of the building). [4] This Court has continually expressed uneasiness with the economic loss doctrine.

2008Id.; Kershaw County Bd. of Educ. v. United States Gypsum Co., *188 302 S.C. 390, 393 , 396 S.E.2d 369, 371 (1990) (finding the economic loss doctrine did not bar recovery in an asbestos case because the defective product caused harm to "other property," including the rest of the building). [4] This Court has continually expressed uneasiness with the economic loss doctrine.