two-issue rule in South Carolina

2026See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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."), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018); Atl.

2026See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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."), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018); Atl.

2024Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 328 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2012) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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 law of the case." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County Of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018))); Shirley's Iron Works, 403 S.C. at 573 , 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirma

2024Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 328 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2012) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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 law of the case." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County Of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018))); Shirley's Iron Works, 403 S.C. at 573 , 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirma

2018See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Every ground of appeal ought to be so distinctly stated that the reviewing court may at once see the point which it is called upon to decide without having to 'grope in the dark' to ascertain the precise point at issue." (quoting Forest Dunes Assocs. v. Club Carib, Inc., 301 S.C. 87, 89 , 390 S.E.2d 368, 370 (Ct. App. 1990))); First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 566 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 378 (Ct. App. 1998) (explaining an "unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance"); Jon

2018See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Every ground of appeal ought to be so distinctly stated that the reviewing court may at once see the point which it is called upon to decide without having to 'grope in the dark' to ascertain the precise point at issue." (quoting Forest Dunes Assocs. v. Club Carib, Inc., 301 S.C. 87, 89 , 390 S.E.2d 368, 370 (Ct. App. 1990))); First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 566 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 378 (Ct. App. 1998) (explaining an "unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance"); Jon

2026See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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."), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018); Atl.

2026See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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."), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018); Atl.

2018See Jones v. Lott , 387 S.C. 339 , 346, 692 S.E.2d 900 , 903 (2010) ("Under the [two-issue] rule, [when] 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."); id. , 692 S.E.2d at 903-04 (noting that the two-issue rule can be applied to situations not involving a jury); Anderson v. Short , 323 S.C. 522 , 525, 476 S.E.2d 475 , 477 (1996) (affirming the trial court's decision because the plaintiff did not appeal all grounds for the decision); see also *365 Atl.

2018See Jones v. Lott , 387 S.C. 339 , 346, 692 S.E.2d 900 , 903 (2010) ("Under the [two-issue] rule, [when] 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."); id. , 692 S.E.2d at 903-04 (noting that the two-issue rule can be applied to situations not involving a jury); Anderson v. Short , 323 S.C. 522 , 525, 476 S.E.2d 475 , 477 (1996) (affirming the trial court's decision because the plaintiff did not appeal all grounds for the decision); see also *365 Atl.

2025Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282 , 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this S

2025Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282 , 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this S

1988Cf. Anderson v. West, 270 S. C. 184, 241 S. E. (2d) 551 (1978) (even if the trial judge erred in submitting an issue to the jury, the two-issue rule requires affirmance where there is sufficient evidence under one theory to submit the case).

1985It cites Anderson v. West, 270 S. C. 184, 241 S. E. (2d) 551 (1978) in which we held that even if there were error in allowing an issue to go to the jury, application of the two issue rule requires affirmance where there is sufficient evidence under one theory to submit the case to the jury.

2023Transp., 322 S.C. 417, 419-20 , 472 S.E.2d 253, 254-55 (1996) (explaining the two-issue rule); id. at 420 , 472 S.E.2d at 254 ("[W]hen a jury's general verdict is supportable by more than one cause of action submitted to it, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all causes of action.").

2023Transp., 322 S.C. 417, 419-20 , 472 S.E.2d 253, 254-55 (1996) (explaining the two-issue rule); id. at 420 , 472 S.E.2d at 254 ("[W]hen a jury's general verdict is supportable by more than one cause of action submitted to it, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all causes of action.").

2025Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282 , 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this S

2025Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282 , 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this S

2024Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 328 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2012) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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 law of the case." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County Of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018))); Shirley's Iron Works, 403 S.C. at 573 , 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirma

2024Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 328 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2012) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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 law of the case." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County Of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018))); Shirley's Iron Works, 403 S.C. at 573 , 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirma

2014Ass'n, Inc., 373 S.C. 360, 365 , 644 S.E.2d 808, 810 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding under the two-issue rule, when a jury verdict involves two or more issues and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue, the verdict will not be reversed on appeal). 4.

2014Ass'n, Inc., 373 S.C. 360, 365 , 644 S.E.2d 808, 810 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding under the two-issue rule, when a jury verdict involves two or more issues and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue, the verdict will not be reversed on appeal). 4.

2010We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: Cole v. Raut , 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) (stating under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed); Jones v. Lott , 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appe

2010We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: Cole v. Raut , 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) (stating under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed); Jones v. Lott , 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appe

2008See also Dropkin v. Beachwalk Villas Condominium, Assn., 373 S.C. 360 , 644 S.E.2d 808 (Ct.App.2007) (affirming a general defense verdict under the two-issue rule where plaintiff alleged error in the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict on the issue of negligence, but where the record contained evidence supporting a defense verdict on the issue of proximate cause); Bryant v. Waste Management, Inc., 342 S.C. 159 , 536 S.E.2d 380 (Ct.App.2000) (applying the two-issue rule to determine that an erroneous instruction on negligence per se was not prejudicial to the defendant where there existe

2008See also Dropkin v. Beachwalk Villas Condominium, Assn., 373 S.C. 360 , 644 S.E.2d 808 (Ct.App.2007) (affirming a general defense verdict under the two-issue rule where plaintiff alleged error in the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict on the issue of negligence, but where the record contained evidence supporting a defense verdict on the issue of proximate cause); Bryant v. Waste Management, Inc., 342 S.C. 159 , 536 S.E.2d 380 (Ct.App.2000) (applying the two-issue rule to determine that an erroneous instruction on negligence per se was not prejudicial to the defendant where there existe

2024Coll., 391 S.C. 1, 8 , 704 S.E.2d 350, 354 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Under the two-issue rule, where 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." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County. of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018))).

2024Coll., 391 S.C. 1, 8 , 704 S.E.2d 350, 354 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Under the two-issue rule, where 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." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. County. of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018))).

2023See Vinson v. Jackson, 327 S.C. 290, 293 , 491 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1997) ("A jury verdict should be upheld when it is possible to do so and carry into effect the jury's clear intention." (quoting Johnson v. Parker, 279 S.C. 132, 135 , 303 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1983))); Anderson v. S.C.

2023See Vinson v. Jackson, 327 S.C. 290, 293 , 491 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1997) ("A jury verdict should be upheld when it is possible to do so and carry into effect the jury's clear intention." (quoting Johnson v. Parker, 279 S.C. 132, 135 , 303 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1983))); Anderson v. S.C.

2023See Vinson v. Jackson, 327 S.C. 290, 293 , 491 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1997) ("A jury verdict should be upheld when it is possible to do so and carry into effect the jury's clear intention." (quoting Johnson v. Parker, 279 S.C. 132, 135 , 303 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1983))); Anderson v. S.C.

2023See Vinson v. Jackson, 327 S.C. 290, 293 , 491 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1997) ("A jury verdict should be upheld when it is possible to do so and carry into effect the jury's clear intention." (quoting Johnson v. Parker, 279 S.C. 132, 135 , 303 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1983))); Anderson v. S.C.

2022Further, because Agape has preserved only one ground for the denial of the directed verdict for appeal (agency)—but not the grounds of alter-ego, joint-venture, or amalgamation of interests—these grounds for liability, and the general verdict that resulted from their presentation to the jury, are the law of the case and unassailable on appeal due to the two-issue rule.2 See Ulmer v. Ulmer, 369 S.C. 486, 490 , 632 S.E.2d 858, 861 (2006) (finding, as a general rule, an unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case); Todd v. S.C.

2022Further, because Agape has preserved only one ground for the denial of the directed verdict for appeal (agency)—but not the grounds of alter-ego, joint-venture, or amalgamation of interests—these grounds for liability, and the general verdict that resulted from their presentation to the jury, are the law of the case and unassailable on appeal due to the two-issue rule.2 See Ulmer v. Ulmer, 369 S.C. 486, 490 , 632 S.E.2d 858, 861 (2006) (finding, as a general rule, an unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case); Todd v. S.C.

2019Dep't of Revenue, 337 S.C. 601, 605 , 524 S.E.2d 626, 628 (1999) ("Failure to appeal an alternative ground of the judgment will result in affirmance."); Folkens v. Hunt, 290 S.C. 194, 205 , 348 S.E.2d 839, 846 (Ct. App. 1986) ("An alternative ruling of a lower court that is not excepted to constitutes a basis for affirming the lower court and is not reviewable on appeal.").

2019Dep't of Revenue, 337 S.C. 601, 605 , 524 S.E.2d 626, 628 (1999) ("Failure to appeal an alternative ground of the judgment will result in affirmance."); Folkens v. Hunt, 290 S.C. 194, 205 , 348 S.E.2d 839, 846 (Ct. App. 1986) ("An alternative ruling of a lower court that is not excepted to constitutes a basis for affirming the lower court and is not reviewable on appeal.").

2019Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 328 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2012) ("Under the two issue rule, [when] 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 law of the case." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010))); Walbeck v. I'On Co., 426 S.C. 494, 526 , 827 S.E.2d 348, 364 (Ct. App. 2019) (recognizing the two issue rule can be applied in situations not involving a jury).

2019Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 328 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2012) ("Under the two issue rule, [when] 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 law of the case." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010))); Walbeck v. I'On Co., 426 S.C. 494, 526 , 827 S.E.2d 348, 364 (Ct. App. 2019) (recognizing the two issue rule can be applied in situations not involving a jury).

2019Dep't of Revenue, 337 S.C. 601, 605 , 524 S.E.2d 626, 628 (1999) ("Failure to appeal an alternative ground of the judgment will result in affirmance."); Folkens v. Hunt, 290 S.C. 194, 205 , 348 S.E.2d 839, 846 (Ct. App. 1986) ("An alternative ruling of a lower court that is not excepted to constitutes a basis for affirming the lower court and is not reviewable on appeal.").

2019Dep't of Revenue, 337 S.C. 601, 605 , 524 S.E.2d 626, 628 (1999) ("Failure to appeal an alternative ground of the judgment will result in affirmance."); Folkens v. Hunt, 290 S.C. 194, 205 , 348 S.E.2d 839, 846 (Ct. App. 1986) ("An alternative ruling of a lower court that is not excepted to constitutes a basis for affirming the lower court and is not reviewable on appeal.").

2019As to the County's argument on the statute of limitations, we find because the County failed to challenge the trial court's ruling the statute of limitations was tolled until 2011, this ruling is the law of the case: Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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."), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. Cty. of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018); McClur

2019As to the County's argument on the statute of limitations, we find because the County failed to challenge the trial court's ruling the statute of limitations was tolled until 2011, this ruling is the law of the case: Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where 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."), abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. Cty. of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494 , 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018); McClur

2018See, e.g. , Jones v. State , 382 S.C. 589 , 594, 677 S.E.2d 20 , 22 (2009) abrogated on other grounds by Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174 , 810 S.E.2d 836 (2018) (evaluating the merits of the State's appeal, despite the PCR judge's dismissal of the State's motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with Rule 59(g), SCRCP ).

2018See, e.g. , Jones v. State , 382 S.C. 589 , 594, 677 S.E.2d 20 , 22 (2009) abrogated on other grounds by Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174 , 810 S.E.2d 836 (2018) (evaluating the merits of the State's appeal, despite the PCR judge's dismissal of the State's motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with Rule 59(g), SCRCP ).

2018See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Every ground of appeal ought to be so distinctly stated that the reviewing court may at once see the point which it is called upon to decide without having to 'grope in the dark' to ascertain the precise point at issue." (quoting Forest Dunes Assocs. v. Club Carib, Inc., 301 S.C. 87, 89 , 390 S.E.2d 368, 370 (Ct. App. 1990))); First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 566 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 378 (Ct. App. 1998) (explaining an "unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance"); Jon

2018See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346 , 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Every ground of appeal ought to be so distinctly stated that the reviewing court may at once see the point which it is called upon to decide without having to 'grope in the dark' to ascertain the precise point at issue." (quoting Forest Dunes Assocs. v. Club Carib, Inc., 301 S.C. 87, 89 , 390 S.E.2d 368, 370 (Ct. App. 1990))); First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 566 , 511 S.E.2d 372, 378 (Ct. App. 1998) (explaining an "unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance"); Jon

2018See, e.g. , Jones v. State , 382 S.C. 589 , 594, 677 S.E.2d 20 , 22 (2009) abrogated on other grounds by Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174 , 810 S.E.2d 836 (2018) (evaluating the merits of the State's appeal, despite the PCR judge's dismissal of the State's motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with Rule 59(g), SCRCP ).

2018See, e.g. , Jones v. State , 382 S.C. 589 , 594, 677 S.E.2d 20 , 22 (2009) abrogated on other grounds by Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174 , 810 S.E.2d 836 (2018) (evaluating the merits of the State's appeal, despite the PCR judge's dismissal of the State's motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with Rule 59(g), SCRCP ).

2016Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Richardson, 411 S.C. 371, 379 , 769 S.E.2d 237, 241 (2015) (providing that "agreements to agree in the future have no legal effect" and are void for indefiniteness).1 AFFIRMED.2 LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. 1 We find the two-issue rule is inapplicable to this appeal.

2016Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Richardson, 411 S.C. 371, 379 , 769 S.E.2d 237, 241 (2015) (providing that "agreements to agree in the future have no legal effect" and are void for indefiniteness).1 AFFIRMED.2 LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. 1 We find the two-issue rule is inapplicable to this appeal.

2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S

2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S

2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S

2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S

2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S

2015See Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) ("Under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed."); id. at 407 ; 663 S.E.2d at 34 ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by the facts of the case."); Consignment Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S