South Carolina Lawyers Weekly May 23, 2022

SCLAWYERSWEEKLY.COM VOLUME 20 NUMBER 11 

Part of the

MAY 23, 2022  $8.50

network

Speedy trial right waived by guilty plea BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com

sentencing enhancement advising the district court to increase, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines, Cisson’s offense level by four if he “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense.” The officer calculated a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of V. Cisson objected to the district court at his resentencing hearing, arguing that the court should not apply the enhancement because the pistol was

In a matter of first impression, the South Carolina Court of Appeals has unanimously held that a defendant waives a speedy trial claim when they plead guilty. The court leaned on decisions from other jurisdictions in finding that a valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional rights or defects which are incidental to trial. “[The defendant’s] speedy trial defense is not a jurisdictional claim or other claim that would have prevented the State from prosecuting him in the first place,” Judge D. Garrison Hill wrote for the court. “Therefore, we hold [the defendant] waived his constitutional right to a speedy trial when he voluntarily pled guilty.” In 2012, Sherwin Green was arrested on charges including kidnapping, burglary and firearm offenses. He made several speedy trial motions and contended that prosecutors delayed his trial to pressure him into cooperating in a capital murder investigation. Conversely, the state claimed that Green agreed to the delays and moved for continuances on his own. In September 2018, Green accepted a negotiated guilty plea the day after Kershaw County Circuit Court Judge Casey Manning denied his third motion for a speedy trial. Manning sentenced Green to 15 years for burglary and two five-year terms for gun charges, all to run concurrent with a 20-year sentence for kidnapping. Manning reconsidered the sen-

See 4th Circuit Page 6 ►

See SC State Page 6 ►

The US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Courthouse on Main Street in Richmond, Va., Wednesday, June 16, 2021. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Enhancement harmless where court would’ve reached same result BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com Even if a district court erred by increasing a defendant’s offense level based on the possession of a firearm “in connection with” another felony offense, the error is harmless where the court would have reached the same result had it sided with the defendant on the sentencing guideline issue, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Robert Cisson pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Dis-

trict of South Carolina to the possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon after he used counterfeit bills to purchase a 9mm pistol in October 2016. Upon his plea, prosecutors dismissed a charge of passing counterfeit money. Cisson was sentenced to 100 months in prison and three years’ supervised release. He appealed the sentence to the 4th Circuit on an issue not considered here, and on remand to district court a probation officer applied in his amended presentence report a

Surviving spouse settles for $2.1M in motorcycle crash BY DAVID BAUGHER The estate of a man who died while riding his motorcycle has settled its claims in the matter for $2.1 million. According to attorney Robert Sansbury of Sansbury Law Firm, Kenneth Dolby and his wife Sharon were sitting at a North Myrtle Beach stoplight when there was a collision with a vehicle operated by motorist Dale Lee Painter. According to Sansbury, Sharon survived but her husband later perished of head wounds. “He had an open skull fracture at the scene,” said Sansbury, who worked with Chris Kinon in

representing the estate. He said that Sharon Dolby suffered a head injury as well as cervical fractures. The setChris Kinon Robert tlement covers claims for both of Sansbury them. “She’s made as good a recovery as one can expect from these types of injuries,” he said. “The issue was less about the extent of the injuries

and more about the liability as well as the insurance coverage applicable to the claim.” He said there was some dispute over whether property damage coverage could be obtained from the liability carrier as well as issues over UIM insurance which the insurer said the couple had declined. “They argued there was zero UIM but they were not able to locate the rejection paperwork so we were able to reform the UIM policy from zero to 500,000, so that was a very big win for us and the clients,” Sansbury said. See Sansbury Page 6 ►

INSIDE VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS

VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS

COMMENTARY

Couple settles for $1.6M in tractor-trailer crash

Civil rights suit settles for $450K

Professionalism and civility are the foundation of the legal profession

Page 3

Page 3

Page 4

2 / NEWS

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I M ay 23, 2022

NEWS BRIEFS Richland County sued for inhumane jail conditions A nonprofit corporation serving those with disabilities filed a federal lawsuit on April 28 against Richland County alleging brutal, inhumane, and unconstitutional conditions at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center in Columbia. Disability Rights South Carolina, which is involved in a similar lawsuit against the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice, says that jail detainees are locked into small, cold, unsanitary cells, denied adequate mental health care and support, placed in solitary confinement for extended periods, and shackled to a restraint chair for days without adequate monitoring and breaks. The suit further alleges that detainees are locked for 48 hours into showers that are too small to sit down in and that those on suicide watch are left naked and unmonitored in their cells. “Forcing anyone, especially people with mental or physical disabilities, to live in these medieval conditions is unconscionable, inexcusable, and clearly unconstitutional,” the complaint reads. According to the complaint, jail officials have for years disregarded complaints by detainees, their families, and attorneys, violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s mandate that those in pretrial detention be protected from harm and not subjected to punishment. The suit is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the county from detaining those with disabilities until it ceases abusive practices, to prevent the detention of detainees from other jurisdictions until the jail is safely staffed, to require the jail to submit to the court a plan for addressing the problems, and to appoint a monitor to oversee the reform process. The plaintiff is being represented by attorneys with Burnette Shutt & McDaniel in Columbia. Heath Hamacher

To mediate on Zoom or in person? Lawsuit: DJJ conditions horrific The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights South Carolina, and Justice 360 has sued the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice and its executive director, alleging “nightmarish” conditions for the more than 250 children detained by the agency. According to the 54-page complaint filed on April 26, the agency is tasked with caring for and rehabilitating children in its custody. Instead, they are subjected to endemic violence, months of solitary confinement, overcrowded and unsanitary facilities, and a lack of meaningful educational or mental health services, the suit alleges. “These children are in danger every day and every night, and DJJ has consistently failed to contain the violence,” Justice 360 Executive Director Lindsey Vann wrote in a statement. “These are systemic problems that need appropriate resources, authority, and support to enact real change.” The suit claims that the cells contain sewage water and feces and that there are cockroaches in the food. Not only does staff often ignore assaults, the complain states, but it sometimes instigates them. Though DJJ purports to operate its own accredited school district and provide rehabilitative and workforce services, most children receive no such services, the complaint states, which is especially damaging for those suffering from learning impairments or physical disabilities. “DJJ holds some of our State’s most traumatized and vulnerable children,” wrote Allen Chaney, legal director for the ACLU of South Carolina. “If conditions don’t immediately and dramatically improve, then the only adequate remedy will be to release children from these horrific conditions.” The suit claims that DJJ has a “well-documented track record” of violating constitutional and statutory rights of children in its care and that despite decades’ worth of findings and interventions, the agency has failed to make substantial progress in implementing lasting solutions. Heath Hamacher

LAWYERS IN THE NEWS Adam Greene has joined Steinberg Law Firm in its Charleston office as an associate and personal injury

and workers’ compensation attorney. Greene is a former insurance industry defense attorney.

BY JEFF TRUEMAN BridgeTower Media Newswires BALTIMORE, MD -- After many months of pandemic-related lockdown, we now know that Zoom works for mediation. Simply stated, it’s efficient. When participants don’t have to travel to a physical location in order to mediate a satisfactory outcome to a litigated dispute, they save even more time and money than they did before the pandemic. Travel restrictions and preferences will likely wax and wane because of emerging COVID-19 variants. If and when participants cannot mediate in person, lawyers and mediators can rely on Zoom to get the deal done. But are in-person mediations really gone for good? I hope not. When environmental conditions permit, I encourage counsel to think strategically about whether to mediate in person or not. First of all, do you want an opportunity to build a meaningful relationship with your client? Zoom’s breakout rooms are quick and easy to administer but keep you at a distance physically and emotionally. Your client may need your presence and guidance when considering his or her options. Second, does your client want or need to experience something more tangible by interacting with the mediator or the other parties? People communicate on multiple levels, consciously and unconsciously. The physicality of a live, in-person mediation can intensify everyone’s attention to the process and the content of the discussions. When it comes to Zoom, parties (and sometimes counsel and the mediator) often have disparate access to technology. Lagging video and audio can make it impossible to understand what is being conveyed. Even when the technology works as intended, Zoom cannot accommodate conversational cross-talk. On the other hand, Zoom allows people to participate from a safe space such as their home and that may foster greater engagement -- or distraction. Some lawyers believe that the fear of trial can be leveraged more effectively in person. But the parties almost never meet face-to-face (by request of their lawyers). In private caucus rooms, with clients looking on, lawyers push back when pushed. When it’s easier for parties to move off of their bargaining positions without threats and posturing from the other side, they may be more likely to negotiate strategically, manage risk responsibly, and make good decisions. This tends to be true whether the process unfolds on Zoom or in person. Third, do you want to show the other parties that you and your client are genuinely committed to the process and

that you respect the other participants (assuming you do)? Everyone knows how easy it is to default to Zoom. So when you offer to show up in person, you make the statement that you’re serious about engaging in a meaningful process. On the other hand, Zoom makes it easier for decision-makers to participate, assuming that they are not driving, caring for children, or otherwise distracted. Joint discussion There is one additional aspect of mediation that I don’t think should be overlooked: the benefits of a joint discussion. Note that I did not say “joint session.” I’m not looking for reasons to inflame anyone’s emotions and make matters worse between the parties. And there is no reason to assume or expect that joint sessions will occur at any time in the process – especially at the beginning. But in my experience, strategic and well-managed joint discussions between select participants (counsel or the parties without counsel) often produce good results. Yes, Zoom can facilitate effective joint discussions. But joint discussions that happen between participants who are physically in the same room are a bit more effective, in my opinion. At the far end of the spectrum, the Mac-Daddy of all joint discussions, “breaking bread,” can work miracles. It turned the tide in a highly sensitive case that occurred during lockdown. With counsel’s permission, I ordered lunch for the parties and me -- no lawyers. The case settled then and there (although getting counsel to stop blaming each other about other things was another matter). If we used Zoom in that case, I suppose I could have arranged for lunch to be delivered to the parties via Door Dash but the power of archetypally “breaking bread” comes from the personal connection it creates. That cannot be facilitated in a virtual breakout room. Contentious and “impossible” cases require creativity and flexibility, with or without Zoom. Essentially, mediation is about negotiating and making decisions with the aid of someone outside of the dispute. Zoom is just a tool that serves the mediation process, like other technological tools we use every day such as cell phones, email, PayPal, DocuSign, etc. Consider how you use technology, along with elements of the mediation process, in order to generate quality information that will help you and your client get the best look at the best set of terms possible. Jeff Trueman is a commercial mediator. He can be reached at jt@jefftrueman.com.

How to successfully navigate the uncertainty of waiting BY TRACEY MEYERS BridgeTower Media Newswires For lawyers, having to navigate uncertainty usually starts with the first reading assignment in law school. Uncertainty grows as students wait for their grades to come out after their first set of final exams and every round of finals thereafter, until the monumental bar exam — and it persists into practice. Students often agonize about whether they passed or failed and can create serious doubt over whether they are cut out to be lawyers. The bar exam presents one of the

most stressful waiting periods as students must wait anywhere from six to 12 weeks to find out if they can practice law, get the job they have been dreaming of, move to a preferred city, and pay their rent. After passing the bar, lawyers encounter many other stressful waiting periods related to their employment (the job search, performance evaluations, partner track), and legal proceedings that have inherent waiting periods built in (waiting for discovery, waiting for the opposing side to respond, waiting for a verdict). In addition, lawyers must reassure their anxious clients as they await the

outcome of their case. While it may be a routine part of the job, for many lawyers waiting can create a heightened sense of anxiety and distress and can lead to burnout and professional dissatisfaction. Of course, not just lawyers struggle with awaiting uncertain news. Anyone who is waiting for test results from a biopsy or waiting to hear if there are going to be layoffs at work knows how distressing it can feel to have to wait. Psychologists have explored why awaiting uncertain news creates so much anxiety. James Shepperd, a social psychologist from the University

of Florida, has studied how individuals respond to waiting and receiving challenging information. His research has shown a predictable pattern of thoughts leading up to the receipt of potentially bad news. Specifically, people tend to display more optimism in the beginning of the waiting period but tend to lower their expectations and shift to a more pessimistic view at the “moment of truth” to protect themselves from disappointment in the face of potentially bad or even life-threatening news. This protection — called “bracing” See Page 3 ►

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I May 23, 2022

VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS / 3

Couple settles for $1.6M in tractor-trailer crash BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com

Craig Anderson Snook

Caitlin Epley

A man and woman who were injured when their car was broadsided by a tractor-trailer have settled their negligence claim for $1.6 million. In early 2017, Douglas Maurer and his wife, Amy, were passengers in their real estate agent’s vehicle, which had stopped in a crossover on Highway 17 in Pawley’s Island. The couple’s attorneys, Craig Anderson Snook and Caitlin Epley of Axelrod & Associates in Myrtle Beach, said that as their driver was waiting for traffic to clear, defendant Danny Keeling entered the median as he tried to avoid colliding with another vehicle. That’s when attorneys say that the 2014 Volvo tractortrailer crashed into the side of the Maurers’ vehicle, causing it

to roll several times before coming to rest upside down in the middle of oncoming lanes. Douglas suffered injuries to his head, upper body, legs, and circulatory system, among others. Amy suffered injuries to her head, upper body, and pelvis, among others. The attorneys report that cervical spine injuries with surgical complications were the primary damages, though it’s unclear which plaintiff suffered the spine injury. Both plaintiffs suffered “severe, ongoing, and permanent pain and suffering, mental and emotional anguish, and permanent physical impairment and disability,” the attorneys said. The plaintiffs sued Keeling, ADUSA Transportation, which owned the tractor-trailer, and Food Lion, which operated the truck to deliver goods to its grocery stores, alleging negligence and loss of consortium. The Maurers’ attorneys said that the defendants did not contest liability but contested damages. The defendants were represented by Charles Moore of Turner Padget in Columbia. Moore did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

SETTLEMENT REPORT — MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH

Amount: $1.6 million Injuries alleged: Cervical spine injury, head laceration, broken teeth, concussion, neck, back, and shoulder injuries Case name: Maurer v. Danny Keeling, ADUSA Transportation, Food Lion, and Delhaize America Court: Horry County Circuit Court Case No.: 2020-CP-26-00915 Mediator: Karl Folkens of Florence Date of settlement: Dec. 15, 2021 Special damages: $500,000 in medicals Insurance carrier: Self-insured/Zurich North American Attorney(s) for plaintiff: Craig Anderson Snook and Caitlin Epley of Axelrod & Associates in Myrtle Beach Attorney(s) for defendant: Charles Moore of Turner Padget in Columbia

Civil rights suit settles for $450K BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com A man who claims he was unlawfully seized by police based on untruthful statements made by an anonymous tipster has settled his civil rights and other claims for $450,000, his attorney reports. Daniel Boles of Boles Law Firm in Charleston said that his client, Daniel a Black man, was at an outdoor Independence Day event in 2017 Boles when several white police officers seized him, claiming that he was the subject of warrants and a restraining order between him and the tipster. Many details of the case, including names of the parties, venue, and defense counsel, were withheld pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. Boles said there were no such warrants or protective orders. After a struggle with the plaintiff, Boles said,

police called emergency medical workers who unlawfully, without underlying medical justification, administered ketamine to assist in the arrest. The plaintiff was rendered unconscious but recovered without any known physical complications, Boles said. The plaintiff sued the city, individual law enforcement officers, county emergency medical services and an emergency medical worker, alleging excessive force, false imprisonment, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, due process violations and negligent hiring, among other claims. Boles said that the plaintiff was tried in absentia for breach of peace and marijuana possession and that a charge of resisting arrest was dismissed. Boles said that the plaintiff made several offers to settle the case earlier for less than the final amount of $450,000 which was mediated by Karl Folkens of Florence. Boles said that throughout the lawsuit and mediation the defendants not only maintained that they did nothing wrong, but assured him that they’d do it again.

SETTLEMENT REPORT — CIVIL RIGHTS/ NEGLIGENCE

Amount: $450,000 Injuries alleged: Emotional distress, injuries to wrist and other minor injuries Case name: Withheld Court: Withheld Mediator: Karl Folkens of Florence Date of settlement: March 21 Attorney for plaintiff: Daniel Boles of Boles Law Firm in Charleston Attorney(s) for defendant: Withheld “I find the present-day practice of using ketamine to arrest a citizen or otherwise subdue them, without any underlying medical justification, like something from a science-fiction dystopian novel,” Boles said. “It has no place in America.”

Pool injury victim settles for $4.1M BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@nclawyersweekly.com A woman who suffered permanent, debilitating brain injuries after a non-fatal drowning has settled her negligence claim for $4.1 million, her attorneys report. The plaintiff was represented by Amanda Mingo and Katie Clary of Rawls, Scheer, Clary & Mingo in Charlotte. The attorneys said that the woman “suddenly and explicably” slipped underwater and sank to the deep end of a swimming pool. It’s unclear how long the woman remained submerged, but the attorneys said that she suffered permanent cognitive impairments and physical injuries. Many of the case’s details, including the venue and the names of the parties and defense counsel,

C o nt inu e d f r o m 2 ►

— is designed to reduce being caught off guard by expected negative news. In other words, if I predict that I am going to fail the bar exam right before I receive my results, I won’t be surprised and can therefore plan accordingly. Bracing relates to shifting expectations but falls short of helping people manage the anxiety that inevi-

have been withheld pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. The woman alleged that the pool’s lifeguard was negligent in failing to see and Amanda Katie Clary rescue her in a Mingo timely manner. The attorneys said that the defendant challenged the allegations of negligence and the extent of permanent injury before agreeing to the settlement. Follow Heath Hamacher on Twitter @NCLWHamacher

tably occurs when encountering difficult waiting periods. Bracing focuses solely on preparing for bad news, but people can manage their anxiety by assuming the best possible outcome. Kate Sweeny, a professor of psychology at the University of California-Riverside, has studied extensively how people cope most effectively with intense uncertainty. She developed

SETTLEMENT REPORT — NEGLIGENCE

Amount: $4.1 million Injuries alleged: Non-fatal drowning that led to hypoxic brain injury and permanent neurological defects Case name: Withheld Court: Withheld Date of settlement: April 2022 Attorneys for plaintiff: Amanda Mingo and Katie Clary with Rawls, Scheer, Clary & Mingo in Charlotte Attorney(s) for defendant: Withheld

the “uncertainty navigation model” as a framework to understand the strategies that people use (including thoughts, feelings and behaviors) to get through intense waiting periods. She studied different populations, including law students waiting for bar exam results and women who underwent breast biopsies and were waiting for these results. Research on health issues has

demonstrated that maintaining an optimistic view, even under difficult situations like waiting for test results, has several health benefits including increased immune functioning, reduced risk for hypertension, and faster recovery from illness. Sweeny’s study in 2014 on law students who prepared for the California See Page 4 ►

4 / COMMENTARY

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I M ay 23, 2022

Professionalism and civility are the foundation of the legal profession BY PAUL MARK SANDLER BridgeTower Media Newswires BALTIMORE, MD -- The practice of law has a rich heritage. Lawyers throughout history have contributed to the development of the rule of law, and to our present day system of justice. Representation of a client whether in court, the board room, or in the drafting of documents is an awesome responsibility. Historically, lawyers have been recognized with respect and gratitude for their many contributions to their clients and to a free society. Many have risked their careers and lives on behalf of their clients. That is not to say that throughout the centuries there have not be criticisms of the Bar. It is fairly debatable, for example, whether Shakespeare in “Henry VI” — “The first thing we do is kill all the Lawyers” — expresses criticism of lawyers or a compliment. I side with those who consider it a compliment, as lawyers are the palladium of freedom. In the context of the play, there was a revolt against the government. Killing all the lawyers was to break down the walls of society. Throughout the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, many recognized the practice of law as a profession — advertising was not permitted. Today, the private practice of law is often focused intensely on business profit, instigating many to now use the term “legal industry.” However, the best of the profession practice professionalism in concert with fulfilling business objectives. In Maryland, professionalism is the doctrinal underpinning of the practice of law. This is clear by the conduct of the best lawyers, and the written guidelines advocating professionalism contained in the Maryland Rules of Procedure. Following Chapter 300 of “Mary-

land Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct,” which focus on ethical rules — is Appendix 19-B, “Ideals of Professionalism,’ where professionalism is defined as: “…the combination of the core values of personal integrity, competency, civility, independence, and public service that distinguish attorneys as the caretakers of the rule of law.” Though these “rules” are aspirational, let them inspire your conduct both in and outside the courtroom. I have included below just a few of the aspirations I find particularly compelling, followed by some of my observations. Put fidelity to clients before selfinterest. This includes integrity and fairness in billing; keeping confidences by not revealing client discussions with others; and taking care to go the “extra mile,” when appropriate. Also, avoid conflicts of interest. Preserve the dignity and integrity of the profession. Cooperate with opposing counsel to accomplish mutual goals. For example, if you are engaged in litigation and concerned that the discovery rules in state court regarding experts are much broader than comparable federal rules—i.e., draft reports and many conversations with experts are discoverable under the state rules but not so under federal rules—why not enter into a side bar agreement with opposing counsel to operate under the federal rules regarding expert discovery? Perhaps opposing counsel filed an amended complaint that you deem defective, e.g., a flaw exists that would result in a dismissal but with leave to amend. Why not call counsel and suggest an amended complaint, unless that would be against the interest of your client? Regarding integrity, consider that it is reported that one lawyer stated to another while seated at counsel

table: “This judge does not know his head from his ... about dispute resolution agreements.” Soon the judge appeared, took his seat, and stated: “Good morning, counsel. Are we ready to proceed? And by the way, I know more about dispute resolution clauses than you think.” The judge’s practice was to record conversations in the courtroom. Also, avoid ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel. Recognize the practice of law is a calling. Enhancing access to justice by providing pro bono representation, and by contributing financially to legal services is vital. Serving on bar association committees and community boards are also important ways to answer the calling for public service. Appreciate the importance of continuing education, mentoring, and excellence. It is important to stay abreast of the law and attend CLE programs. Additionally, mentoring new lawyers is an implicit commitment by the best lawyers. It is not wrong to take time out during a deposition to suggest to a new lawyer the proper way to pose the question, after several failed attempts. Of course, if this contradicts the best interest of your client, this suggestion is not appropriate. When thinking of professionalism, consider the following remarks made many years ago by John W. Davis, Esq.: “In the heart of every great lawyer, worthy of the name there burns a deep ambition so to bear themselves that the profession may be stronger by reason of their passage through its ranks, and that they may leave the law itself a better instrument of human justice than they found it.” Let’s all be one of the best lawyers to which he refers. Paul Mark Sandler, trial lawyer and author, can be reached at pms@ shapirosher.com.

Making friends with other attorneys BY JESSICA MARKHAM BridgeTower Media Newswires BALTIMORE, MD -- When I first started practicing, an older lawyer once told me that I could never be friends with lawyers. He said that I could be friendly and I should be courteous, but I would never make a true friend who was another family law attorney. I have found this to be completely wrong, but it took me several years to figure it out. Honestly, when I heard it, it didn’t make sense to me, but I figured he’s so much older, he must know a lot more than I do. Obviously, this was a piece of advice that I have since taken and thrown in the garbage.

C o nt inu e d f r o m 3 ►

state bar found those students who were optimistic about the results had lower levels of anxiety and rumination. It can be very difficult at first to have an optimistic view, especially for lawyers who are trained to look for the potential negative outcomes as part of their jobs or clients who have

I have so many good friends who started as opposing counsel. Getting to know other attorneys and building real friendships with them through bar association activities has made having cases against them all the better. I know they are trustworthy, and I don’t have to document every conversation in an email because I know the value of their word. Our friendships and mutual respect means something to us, and we won’t compromise it by acting badly in a case. Case after case, I have seen that you can truly disagree without being disagreeable. Being friends with an attorney does not mean that you will compromise your client’s position. It does not mean that you will “take it

easy” on them or not send out discovery or not file the motions you need to file. Having a case against a lawyerfriend usually makes the case easier. We’ve all had opposing counsel who is rude or nasty, and we know that makes everything harder and more expensive because you can’t just pick up the phone and have a civil conversation. Lawyers I have had cases with have become some of my most meaningful friendships because in many ways they understand me more than my “nonlawyer friends.” So, if you enjoy and respect a new attorney after a case against them, I encourage you to reach out when the case is over and tell them. It might be the start of a new friendship.

had a lot of turmoil in their lives. Therefore, it can take practice to believe that positive outcomes are even a possibility when waiting for news. To move toward this optimistic way of thinking, it can be helpful to rehearse positive outcomes through journaling, visualization and setting goals for the future based on a desired result. Harnessing the power of optimistic thinking can be further

strengthened by working on these skills in conjunction with a therapist utilizing cognitive behavioral techniques. By continuing to rehearse these positive outcomes, our minds develop an alternative mental pathway to the “bracing for the worst” strategy. Emotion regulation is another See Page 5 ►

"Helping lawyers practice better, more efficiently, and more profitably." PUBLISHER Liz Irwin lirwin@bridgetowermedia.com EDITOR Jordan Yount jyount@molawyersmedia.com EDITORIAL Heath Hamacher, Reporter hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com Scott Baughman, Digital Media Manager sbaughman@mecktimes.com ADVERTISING Sheila Batie-Jones, Advertising Account Executive sbatie-jones@sclawyersweekly.com ACCOUNTING & ADMINISTRATIVE Michael McArthur, Business Manager mmcarthur@bridgetowermedia.com CIRCULATION Disa Ehrler, Audience Development Manager dehrler@bridgetowermedia.com Circulation: 1-877-615-9536 service@bridgetowermedia.com PRODUCTION & OPERATIONS Bradley Redmond, Director of Production Ryan O’Shea, Production Supervisor John Reno, Production Specialist

©2022 BridgeTower Media. Material published in South Carolina Lawyers Weekly is compiled at substantial expense and is for the sole and exclusive use of purchasers and subscribers. The material may not be republished, resold, recorded, or used in any manner, in whole or in part, without the publisher’s explicit consent. Any infringement will be subject to legal redress. South Carolina Lawyers Weekly (USPS #020216) is published biweekly every other Monday with General Statewide Circulation by South Carolina Lawyers Weekly at 130 N. McDowell St. Unit B, Charlotte NC 282042411. (919) 829-9333, (800)-876-5297. Periodicals postage paid at Charlotte, NC 28228-9998. Subscriptions Rates: $369 per year. Website: www.sclawyersweekly.com POSTMASTER: Electronic Service Requested, send address changes to South Carolina Lawyers Weekly, Subscription Services, P.O. Box 1051 Williamsport, PA, 17703-9940 service@bridgetowermedia.com South Carolina Lawyers Weekly is a publication of BridgeTower Media, 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN 55402.

NEWS / 5

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I May 23, 2022

Court rules insurance carriers cannot refuse coverage in a post-loss assignment of benefits BY TERI SAYLOR The South Carolina Supreme Court has reversed a court of appeals ruling that agreed a group of insurance carriers (respondents) were justified in refusing coverage to PCS Nitrogen in a post-loss assignment of insurance benefits. The Supreme Court also remanded the matter to circuit court. “Post-loss assignment is a common law rule providing that insurer consent is not required for an assignment of insurance benefits made after a ‘loss’ has occurred,” wrote Justice George C. James. “PCS Nitrogen seeks insurance coverage for liability arising from contamination of a fertilizer manufacturing site in Charleston, claiming its right to coverage stems from an assignment of insurance benefits executed by Columbia Nitrogen Corporation in 1986,” James wrote. “The Respondents claim they owe no coverage because Columbia Nitrogen Corporation executed the assignment without their consent. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Respondents, and the court of appeals affirmed.” The Supreme Court heard the case on June 16, 2021 and filed its opinion on April 13, 2022. By way of background, in 1966, Columbia Nitrogen Corporation (Old CNC) began operating the Charleston fertilizer site. The insurance company respondents issued primary and excess liability insurance policies to Old CNC with periods ranging from 1966 to 1985 that provide “payment on behalf of the insured for property damage caused by an occurrence.” The policies go on to define “occurrence” as an “accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions resulting in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” The policies also contain a consentto-assignment provision, and a noaction provision. Old CNC ceased all fertilizer pro-

C o nt inu e d f r o m 4 ►

strategy to cope with uncertainty recommended by Sweeny, which helps us focus on what we can control amid the uncertainty. Emotion regulation refers to the ability to modulate or regulate difficult emotions including anxiety, fear and anger. By focusing on how to cope with the anxiety itself, rather than the outcome of the news, people can often find relief because they are not relying on something outside their control. Getting into a state of what researchers call “flow” is one of the most

duction at the Charleston site in 1972 and sold it to a third party in 1985. In 1986, Old CNC sold assets related to its fertilizer production business in Augusta, Georgia, to CNC Corp. (New CNC). In that transaction, and new CNC assumed some of Old CNC’s liabilities, including those related to Old CNC’s fertilizer production business. “The 1986 transaction also included the assignment at the root of this appeal,” James wrote. In that assignment, Old CNC transferred to New CNC its rights under expired policies spanning from 1966 to 1985. But Old CNC did not obtain the insurance companies’ consent to the assignment. Old CNC dissolved after closing the transaction with New CNC. In 1989, New CNC merged with Fertilizer Industries, Inc., which changed its name to Arcadian Corporation. In 1997, Arcadian Corporation merged with PCS Nitrogen. In 2005, the Charleston-based property management company Ashley II owned the Charleston site and filed a declaratory judgment action against PCS in federal court, alleging PCS was liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act for environmental remediation at the Charleston site. The suit further alleged Old CNC contaminated the site and that PCS was liable for remediation because its predecessor, New CNC, had acquired Old CNC’s liabilities in the 1986 transaction. But PCS Nitrogen argued it was not the corporate successor to Old CNC and filed a contribution counterclaim against Ashley II and third-party claims against other entities with ties to the Charleston Site, alleging Old CNC’s “activities at the Charleston Site substantially contributed to the contamination of the property.” PCS Nitrogen filed an insurance claim and sought a declaration that the respondents are obligated to provide coverage for its defense costs and environmental liabilities stemming

from the CERCLA litigation and contends their consent to the assignment was not required because the assignment took place after the loss occurred. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the respondents, ruling the assignment is unenforceable as a matter of law because Old CNC did not secure the respondents’ consent. The circuit court further ruled the assignment is not a post-loss assignment because, at the time of the assignment, no judgment had been entered against Old CNC. The circuit court also rejected PCS’s argument that it is entitled to coverage as Old CNC’s corporate successor under a de facto merger theory. Finally, the circuit court determined the respondents’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the pollution exclusion was moot in light of its ruling that PCS is not entitled to coverage in the first instance. The court of appeals affirmed. In making its determination, the Supreme Court addressed an argument the respondents attributed to PCS, which claimed Old CNC assigned insurance policies to New CNC, not merely rights under expired insurance policies. The Supreme Court found that PCS correctly notes that assignment of the policies would have been impossible because the policy periods had expired and the only remaining things to be assigned were policy rights or benefits with respect to occurrences that took place during the policy periods. “It is generally held that an assignment after a loss has already occurred does not require an insurer’s consent,” James wrote. He pointed out that courts have recognized the postloss exception because its purpose is to protect the insurer from increased liability, and the insurer’s risk cannot be increased by a change in the insured’s identity. “We now adopt the post-loss exception and hold insurer consent is not required for an assignment of liability

insurance coverage rights made after a loss,” James wrote. The court also found that the policies do not define “loss.” But they do define “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” PCS argued the terms “loss” and “occurrence” are synonymous and contends the assignment is a post-loss assignment because it was executed after the occurrence — discharge of contaminants with resulting property damage. The Supreme Court agreed, pointing to extensive case law supporting opinions that the “loss,” in the context of the post-loss exception, is synonymous with the “occurrence.” “In this case, any loss occurred before Old CNC executed the assignment in 1986. We therefore reverse the court of appeals’ holding that the loss does not take place until the insurer’s obligation to pay is fixed by a judgment against the insured,” James wrote. The justices were also persuaded by PCS’s public policy argument that relieving the respondents of their contractual duty to provide coverage would give them a windfall as the risks were factored into the original underwriting of the policies, and the premiums paid by Old CNC were in exchange for coverage. “We reverse the court of appeals and hold Old CNC executed a valid post-loss assignment of insurance rights in 1986,” James wrote in the court opinion. “PCS cannot be denied coverage on the basis that Respondents did not consent to the assignment. We remand to the circuit court for further proceedings on PCS’s claim for coverage.” The 15-page decision is in re PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 010016-22). The full text of the opinion is available online at sclawyersweekly. com.

effective emotion regulation strategies for coping with uncertainty. We can find “flow” by engaging in an “intrinsically rewarding activity that is just challenging enough to match one’s skill level and that provides clear goals and feedback.” Sweeny found that engaging in flow-inducing activities including exercise, games, puzzles, sports, work and social outings boosted an individual’s sense of emotional well-being while awaiting important news, including bar exam results, internship and residency matches for medical students, and even during quarantine

through the pandemic. Mindfulness meditation is another strategy that was equally effective in promoting well-being during difficult waiting periods. Mindfulness refers to paying attention — in the present moment, for a specific period — non-

judgmentally to the breath, the body, or other objects in the environment such as sounds. Mindfulness during uncertainty is associated with more positive emoSee Page 6 ►

Clarkson, Walsh & Coulter, a well-established insurance defense litigation firm with offices in Greenville, South Carolina and Charleston, South Carolina, seeks to hire a licensed South Carolina attorney for its Charleston office. We are a fast paced litigation office that specializes in the defense of individuals and businesses in all areas of civil litigation, including construction litigation, premises liability, insurance coverage and bad faith defense, and automobile negligence. The ideal candidate for this position will have 1-3 years of litigation experience. Please submit a cover letter, resume, and writing sample in confidence to jcarver@clarksonwalsh.com.

6 / NEWS

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I M ay 23, 2022

SC STATE / Speedy trial right waived by guilty plea C o nt inu e d f r o m 1 ►

tence at the request of Green, who cited his assistance to the state, and reduced Green’s sentence to an aggregate of 12 years. But he rejected Green’s assertion that the circuit court never ruled on the merits of his speedy trial motion. On appeal, Green argued that the state intentionally delayed his case

for nearly three years, denying his right to a speedy trial and causing him actual prejudice. He denies ever waiving his right to appeal the violation of his right to a speedy trial. Among other jurisdictions, the appeals court cited courts in Georgia, Mississippi, and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that have determined that constitutional challenges to pretrial proceedings are non-juris-

dictional defenses waived by a guilty plea. Hill wrote that the court has generally included rights secured by the Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. “We take this opportunity to specifically include in that class of waivable or forfeitable rights the right to a speedy trial, whether of constitutional or statutory origin,” Hill wrote Judges John Geathers and Jer-

emy Lockemy concurred in the opinion. Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing represented the state. Appellate Defender Victor Seegar represented the defendant. The four-page decision is State v. Green (Lawyers Weekly No. 011024-22). The full text of the opinion is available online at nclawyersweekly.com.

4TH CIRCUIT / Enhancement harmless where court C o nt inu e d f r o m 1 ►

not used “in connection with” the crime of passing counterfeit money. The court overruled the objection but granted two others, decreasing his category from V to IV and lowering his sentencing range to 57 to 71 months in prison. It resentenced Cisson to 62 months in prison and three years’ supervised release. Cisson appealed, asserting that the court erred in applying the enhancement.

“In connection with” irrelevant here

Cisson did not dispute that he possessed the firearm or ammunition, nor that he committed another felony offense. But he argued that possession of the firearm was not “in connection with” the offense of passing counterfeit money. The 4th Circuit explained that it is not especially burdensome to the government to satisfy the “in connection with” requirement but that despite the strengths or weaknesses of each side’s arguments regarding the enhancement, the court ultimately would not need to decide the question if it determined that the error was harmless. One prong of that analysis would be whether the district court would have reached the same result if it had decided the Guidelines issue (the “in connection with” issue) the other way. District Judge J. Michelle Childs

C o nt inu e d f r o m 5 ►

tions and a reduction in depression. In my own clinical practice, I have found additional emotion regulation practices, including self-compassion meditations (practices designed to reduce shame and increase self-kindness), yoga and tai chi/qi gong that create strength, balance and flexibility, along with improved focus and concentration, and support groups in which individuals recognize that they are not alone in their struggles can be powerful tools during difficult waiting periods. There are no one-size-fits-all ways to cope with uncertainty, but there are some key strategies that can reduce the intensity of the distress. 1. Accept that uncertainty is challenging and have compassion, patience and understanding for ourselves and others during difficult waiting periods. Sometimes just offering this acceptance to ourselves or our clients can be helpful. For example, say to a client, “It is really hard to wait for a verdict,” rather than simply try to reassure that everything will be fine or downplay the difficulty. 2. While most of us tend to “brace” for the worst when waiting, optimism

indicated that it would have, Motz noted. “First, under binding circuit precedent, we have held that we know a district court would have reached the same result when it tells us that it would have done so and explains why, and here the district court did just that,” Motz wrote.

No grounds for Rogers error

Cisson also alleged that the district court committed two Rogers errors—each requiring that his sentence be vacated and remanded for resentencing—by 1) orally describing a condition specifying the district to which he should report after his release that differed from the description of that condition in the court’s written judgment, and 2) orally announcing merely that Cisson would be subject to the “mandatory standard conditions” of supervised release, thereby failing to adequately announce the discretionary conditions that it later imposed in its written judgment. After Cisson’s conviction, the 4th Circuit decided in U.S. v. Rogers that a district court must announce discretionary conditions of supervised release at sentencing hearings. Subsequently, in State v. Singletary, the court emphasized that the proper remedy for a Rogers error is to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Finally, in U.S. v. Jenkins, the court noted that where the description of about the outcome is more effective in reducing anxiety and worrying. This can be particularly difficult for legal professionals and takes practice. 3. Emotion regulation strategies that can soothe the nervous system play a key role in managing anxiety during waiting periods. These might include breathing exercises, massage, counseling and support groups. 4. Engaging in rewarding activities that allow the mind to be absorbed in something challenging and goal-oriented (“flow”) can increase well-being during uncertainty. This is especially true as the “moment of truth” for finding out the answer nears, and anxiety hits its peak. 5. Mindfulness meditation, yoga and tai chi, and self-compassion can also reduce anxiety and increase wellbeing during uncertain times and help keep our minds focused on the present moment. By learning to navigate uncertainty with optimism and self-compassion, lawyers can help themselves and their clients manage this difficult time with more ease, less anxiety, and an improved sense of well-being. Dr. Tracey Meyers is a clinical psychologist and mindfulness instructor with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers.

a condition in an oral sentence did not match the description of that condition in the written judgment, the error alone is a reversible Rogers error. In his first Rogers claim, Cisson claims not a failure to announce a discretionary condition but an inconsistency between descriptions in his oral sentence and written judgment. The court told Cisson that within 72 hours of release from prison, he was to report to the probation office in the district to which he was released, whereas the written judgment directed him to report to the district where he was authorized to reside. The government argued that there is no inconsistency because the district in which a defendant is released is the district in which the government has authorized him to reside. The court noted that while different interpretations are possible (e.g., a defendant is released to a district where a prison physically sits rather than where he or she will live), Cisson waived his possible response to the government’s explanation when he failed to respond to it. “For this reason, we must hold that there is no inconsistency between the descriptions of the condition in the oral sentence and written judgment, and thus no Rogers error,” Motz wrote. Cisson’s second Rogers claim “fares no better,” the court held, rejecting his contention that the dis-

trict court failed to adequately announce his discretionary conditions of supervised release by merely stating that it would impose the “mandatory standard” conditions of release. An audio review of the sentencing revealed that the court said that it would impose the “mandatory and standard conditions.” Either way, Motz noted that the court made clear in Rogers that a court may satisfy its requirement to announce discretionary conditions by incorporating all Guidelines “standard” conditions when it announces a supervised release sentence. “The District of South Carolina has no standing order listing its own ‘standard’ conditions that differs from the Guidelines list of standard conditions found at U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c),” Motz wrote. “Thus, there is no other set of ‘standard’ 17 conditions to which the court could have been referring other than the Guidelines ‘standard’ conditions.” Circuit Judges G. Steven Agee and James Wynn Jr. concurred in the opinion. Erica Soderdahl of the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Greenville represented Cisson. Benjamin Garner of the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Columbia represented the government. The 17-page decision is U.S. v. Cisson (Lawyers Weekly No. 001072-22). The full text of the opinion is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.

SANSBURY / C o nt inu e d f r o m 1 ►

In addition to the UIM money, a million dollars came from the umbrella policy, half a million more from primary liability coverage and another $100,000 in liability property damage. “There is no amount that will ever compensate them for what they’ve been through but it is so rare that you have all the stars aligned with an umbrella policies and extra UIM,” he said. “We were just thankful that we were able to go the extra mile for the family on this one.” He said that liability has been expressly denied by the carriers in the matter. The office of Richardson Plowden, which Sansbury said represented the defendant, declined comment on the case. A message left with Murphy & Grantland, which represented the UIM carrier, did not return a call requesting comment.

SETTLEMENT REPORT – MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT

Amount: $2.1 million Injuries alleged: Wrongful death and survival damages Case name: Sharon Dolby as P.R. of the Estate of Kenneth Dolby v. Dale Lee Painter Venue: Horry County Case No.: 2022-CP-26-001740 Date of settlement: April 5, 2022 Most helpful experts: Woodrow Poplin Insurance carrier: Rockingham (liability); Progressive (UIM) Attorneys for plaintiff: Chris Kinon and Robert Sansbury of Sansbury Law Firm in Myrtle Beach Attorneys for defendant: Richardson Plowden for Rockingham; Murphy & Grantland for Progressive

OPINION DIGESTS / 7

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I May 23, 2022

Opinions Criminal Practice Supervised Release Revocation – Seriousness of the Offense – Plain Error In revoking defendant’s supervised release and before sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment, the district court repeatedly invoked the egregious conduct underlying defendant’s state domestic violence offense and the short state statutory maximum penalty associated with that offense, and stated that the court was “for punishing people who break the law and batter people.” But a district court may not base its revocation sentence on the need for the imposed sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense or the need to provide just punishment for his conduct. Given our prior recognition that a sentencing court must base its decision on permissible factors, we conclude that the district court’s sentence was plainly unreasonable; furthermore, the record supports defendant’s contention that his sentence may have been improperly increased on the basis of the court’s error. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. United States v. Scott (Lawyers Weekly No. 003-019-22, 5 pp.) (Per Curiam) 21-4044. Appealed from USDC at Anderson, S.C. (Henry Herlong, S.J.) Erica Soderdahl for appellant; Rhett Dehart and Addison Gantt for appellee. 4th Cir. Unpub.

Domestic Relations Divorce – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – N.C. Residents Although the plaintiff-Husband presented some evidence that he intended his parents’ South Carolina home to be his residence, Husband returned to the parties’ North Carolina residence whenever his military service and airline employment allowed, and he also became involved in local politics and voted in North Carolina through the general election in 2016. In fact, Husband did not file a request to cancel his North Carolina voter registration until May 2017, just a few weeks before he filed this divorce action. We accept the family court’s credibility determinations and agree that Husband did not show that he had been a resident of South Carolina for one year prior to filing this action. S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-30. We affirm the family court’s dismissal of Husband’s action and its award of attorney’s fees to the defendant-Wife. This case is distinguishable from Gasque v. Gasque, 246 S.C. 423, 143 S.E.2d 811 (1965). Unlike Gasque, here, Husband did not live in North Carolina because of government employment or work. Husband served in the military throughout his marriage, but his military service never required him to reside in North Carolina.

The military fully released Husband from active duty in December of 2013, at which point he returned to Eden, North Carolina with Wife and Child 1, and began looking for work. Husband did not specifically seek employment in South Carolina at that time. He eventually obtained employment with Delta in late 2015. Delta permitted him to commute from the airport of his choosing and his unit assignment with the military was in Pennsylvania. Thus, neither his employment nor his military duties required his presence in North Carolina. Instead, he testified he lived in Eden because that was where his Wife and Children were. Therefore, we find this case is distinguishable from Gasque because Husband did not reside in Eden due to his military service or any other government employment. The family court did not err in considering Husband’s North Carolina voting record and did not give the records undue weight in reaching its decision. Not only did Husband encourage Wife to run for the local school board, but he was also active in local politics in North Carolina. Husband’s actions, including registering to vote and voting several times in North Carolina, demonstrated he did not simply reside in Eden but rather, he intended to establish Eden as his home and become part of its community. The preponderance of the evidence shows Husband abandoned his parents’ South Carolina home when he began living with his Wife and Children in North Carolina. By registering to vote, becoming involved in local politics, residing with his Wife and Children in their home in Eden whenever he was not away for military assignments or his work with Delta, Husband demonstrated an intent to remain in North Carolina indefinitely. After abandoning South Carolina as his domicile, he did not return there with the intent to remain until September 2016 at the earliest, which was less than one year before he filed this action for divorce. Accordingly, we affirm the family court’s finding that Husband failed to satisfy the residency requirement of § 20-3-30 to maintain an action for divorce in South Carolina.

Attorney’s Fees

It is true that Wife failed to file the financial declaration required by Rule 20, SCRFC; however, her failure to comply with the rule did not preclude the family court from granting her request for attorney’s fees. Wife testified that she was unemployed and had no income. Husband did not dispute Wife’s testimony. Both parties testified they currently lived with their respective parents, and Wife testified that the parties’ children lived with her. This was sufficient for the family court to consider Wife’s financial condition and standard of living compared to Husband’s. Given that Husband incurred al-

most $5,000 more in attorney’s fees for litigating the same issue, we find Wife’s attorney’s fees were reasonable based upon the nature, extent and difficulty of the case. Hayduk v. Hayduk (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-023-22, 16 pp.) (James Lockemy, A.J.) Substituted opinion. Appealed from the Family Court in Greenville County (Tarita Dunbar, J.) David Alan Wilson for appellant; Falkner Wilkes for respondent. S.C. App.

Criminal Practice Constitutional – Speedy Trial – Waiver – Guilty Plea – First Impression Defendant argues the state denied him his right to a speedy trial by purposefully delaying his case for 33 months, causing him actual prejudice. However, defendant entered a guilty plea, and a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea constitutes a waiver of non-jurisdictional defects and claims of violations of constitutional rights. South Carolina does not appear to have specifically addressed whether a defendant waives a speedy trial claim when he pleads guilty. Other jurisdictions have found the right to a speedy trial is non-jurisdictional and is waived by a defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant’s speedy trial defense is not a jurisdictional claim or other claim that would have prevented the state from prosecuting him in the first place. Therefore, we hold defendant waived his constitutional right to a speedy trial when he voluntarily pled guilty. We affirm defendant’s convictions for kidnapping, second-degree burglary, and two firearm offenses. State v. Green (Lawyers Weekly No 011-024-22, 4 pp.) (Garrison Hill, J.) Appealed from Kershaw County Circuit Court (Casey Manning, J.) Victor Seeger for appellant; Alan McCrory Wilson and Mark Reynolds Farthing for respondent. S.C. App.

Criminal Practice Burglary – Drug House – ‘Dwelling’ – Murder & Kidnapping Because witnesses testified that the house that defendant broke into was a drug or “trap” house, defendant contends that the overall home could not be burglarized. Instead, defendant argues, the court should limit the owner’s “dwelling” to her bedroom and consider the other rooms in the house — where other occupants were located — not to be part of the owner’s dwelling. However, the house was a residential home that the owner lived in, including on the night of the incident. The owner and her “castle” deserve the same protections under the law of first-degree burglary as any other home that meets the statutory requirements. We affirm defendant’s convictions

and sentences for murder, first-degree burglary, criminal conspiracy, and two counts of kidnapping. Because one of her drug dealers, Mark Connor, stole $1,000 from her, defendant, the man who sold the drugs to her “on credit,” and another accomplice broke into a drug house and killed Conner. Although defendant proposed a jury charge raising an issue about lawful possession and consent, there was no evidence of a dispute as to the legal ownership of the house she broke into with her accomplices. In fact, defendant testified that Ms. “Rose Hoffberg” was “standing behind the door” when the door was kicked, and Ms. Rose was “the owner of the house.” It is true that S.C. Code Ann. § 163-910 says that one convicted of kidnapping “must be imprisoned for a period not to exceed thirty years unless sentenced for murder as provided in Section 16-3-20.” Here, however, defendant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Connor, while she was convicted of kidnapping other occupants of the house, i.e., Alexis Nicole Murray and Whitney Renee Chance. Based on State v. Vazsquez, 364 S.C. 293, 613 S.E.2d 359 (2005), the trial court properly sentenced defendant for the kidnappings of Murray and Chance because defendant was only sentenced for murdering Conner — not Murray and Chance — and thus the prohibition found in § 16-3910 does not apply. We acknowledge defendant cites two 1984 opinions from our Supreme Court to support her position. However, we are bound by Vazsquez because it is the more recent opinion on the issue. Finally, where defendant tried to discredit the state’s witnesses, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recording of a 911 call made from Ms. Rose’s house on the night of the break-in. The recording supported the state’s version of events by providing an account of what happened in “real time,” and the recording identified defendant as being part of the group that broke into Ms. Rose’s home and killed Connor. Affirmed. State v. Davis-Kocsis (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-025-22, 18 pp.) (James Lockemy, A.J.) Appealed from Berkeley County Circuit Court (Maite Murphy, J.) Susan Barber Hackett and Jason Scott Luck for appellant; Alan McCrory Wilson, Julianna Battenfield and Scarlett Anne Wilson for respondent. S.C. App.

Criminal Practice Guilty Plea – Maximum Sentence – Judge’s Colloquy Even though it was the prosecutor – rather than the judge, as required by Rule 11, FRCrP – who informed defendant of the maximum term of imprisonment he faced, since the judge then reviewed these terms with

8 / OPINION DIGESTS defendant and specifically confirmed that defendant understood, the judge did not plainly err. We affirm defendant’s convictions and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon and misdemeanor domestic violence. Defendant also argues that the district court erroneously sentenced him as an armed career criminal because his three prior convictions for criminal domestic violence-3rd offense, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-20(D), do not qualify as violent felonies. Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Drummond, 925 F.3d 681 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that South Carolina state court convictions of criminal domestic violence are categorically violent felonies). United States v. Benson (Lawyers Weekly No. 003-020-22, 4 pp.) (Per Curiam) No. 19-4543. Appealed from U.S.D.C. at Spartanburg, S.C. (Donald Coggins, J.) William Watkins for appellant; Leesa Washington for appellee. 4th. Cir. Unp.

Criminal Practice Sentencing – Supervised Release Conditions – Discrepancies – Exculpatory Evidence The discretionary conditions of supervised release orally announced by the district court are inconsistent with those listed in the written judgment, in violation of United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020). We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. We affirm defendant’s conviction of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. Defendant argues that the traffic stop – which led to the discovery of his firearm and ammunition – was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, since defendant was a passenger and since he did not establish an ownership or possessory interest in the vehicle, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle or its contents. Therefore, defendant lacks standing to challenge the search. While cross-examining a responding officer, defendant learned that there was a recording of a statement by the vehicle’s driver claiming ownership of the firearm. The government was unaware of the recording, and it had not been disclosed to defendant during discovery. The district court paused the proceedings and told the government to

secure the recording from the arresting officer and to promptly turn it over to defendant. The government did so. Defendant used the recording upon resuming his cross-examination of the officer and during his direct examination of the officer during the defense’s case. Defendant also introduced the recording into evidence and played it for the jury. Thus, the recording was disclosed in time for defendant to use it effectively at trial; therefore, that he is not entitled to relief under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The government was required to prove that defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. Defendant does not allege that there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted him if it had been instructed on this mens rea element. In light of defendant’s prior felon-in-possession convictions, we conclude that he has not made a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he did not in fact know he was a felon. Defendant is not entitled to relief under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded. United States v. Sloan (Lawyers Weekly No. 003-021-22, 7 pp.) (Per Curiam) No. 18-4782. Appealed from USDC at Greenville, S.C. (Mary Lewis, J.) John Ervin for appellant; Maxwell Cauthen for appellee. 4th Cir. Unp.

Criminal Practice Anders Brief – Sentencing – Above Guidelines Range Defendant stipulated to the aboveGuidelines-range sentence that he received because, without his plea agreement, his potential sentencing exposure would have been significantly greater than the agreed-upon 240-month term. Defendant’s sentence was not imposed in violation of the law, and it is procedurally and substantially reasonable. We affirm defendant’s convictions and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, methamphetamine and marijuana; two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon; using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime; and possession with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and a quantity of heroin, cocaine base and

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I M ay 23, 2022

marijuana. United States v. Mitchell (Lawyers Weekly No. 003-022-22, 5 pp.) (Per Curiam) No. 19-4369. Appealed from USDC at Columbia, S.C. (Terry Wooten, J.) Timothy Ward Murphy for appellant; William Kenneth Witherspoon for appellee. 4th Cir. Unp.

Criminal Practice Guilty Plea – Appeal Waiver – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Defendant’s challenge to his sentence – including the applicability of 21 U.S.C. § 851 and the denial of his motion to suppress – falls squarely within the scope of the appellate waiver contained in defendant’s plea agreement. We dismiss in part. We affirm defendant’s convictions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not apparent on the face of the record. We also dismiss this portion of the appeal. United States v. Wolfe (Lawyers Weekly No. 003-023-22, 4 pp.) (Per Curiam) No. 19-4892. Appealed from USDC at Greenville, S.C. (Donald Coggins, J.) John Ervin for appellant; Maxwell Cauthen for appellee. 4th Cir. Unp.

Workers’ Compensation Death Benefits – Causation – Smoke Inhalation & Influenza The Appellate Panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission mischaracterized the medical evidence of causation and ignored other evidence that the smoke-inhalation injury, which the decedent-deputy suffered during three 12-hour shifts at a massive fire, was a proximate cause of his death. We reverse the Appellate Panel’s decision, which overturned the single commissioner’s award of death benefits. The Appellate Panel read equivocal testimony from the deputy’s treating physician to mean that it would be speculative to conclude that smoke inhalation was the proximate cause of his death. The Appellate Panel mischaracterized the treating physician’s testimony. Other physicians then relied on his mischaracteriza-

tion in responding to questions during their own depositions. In addition to dismissing certain circumstantial evidence as “speculative” or categorizing it as “no evidence,” the Appellate Panel failed to recognize that circumstantial evidence may be used to prove causation. The Appellate Panel did not lack a causation opinion. Despite this, it reached its own proximate cause conclusion based on an erroneous mischaracterization of the medical and circumstantial evidence. The State of South Carolina, Horry County, and national law enforcement organizations recognized the deputy as having died in the line of duty. Horry County Coroner Robert Edge, Jr., testified he amended the deputy’s death certificate to change the manner of death from “natural” to “accidental” after reviewing Dr. William Largen’s Medical University of South Carolina death summary noting the deputy ‘s “smoke inhalation injury.” No physician has requested that Coroner Edge correct the death certificate as to the deputy’s manner of death. Finally, Horry County Sheriff Phillip Thompson testified before the single commissioner that he met with the deputy at the start of his first shift working the Carolina Forest fire perimeter, and the deputy “seemed fine, seemed well,” with no coughing, sneezing, or redness in his eyes. The deference required by our standard of review does not require us to ignore the Appellate Panel’s mischaracterization of the medical evidence. Our review of the Appellate Panel’s order—in conjunction with the medical records, deposition transcripts, live testimony, and submitted expert opinions—convinces us that substantial evidence does not support the Appellate Panel’s findings, most notably, its statement that “[n]o opinion of any doctor who actually treated [the deputy] supports a finding that [the deputy] sustained any injury due to his alleged smoke exposure.” Reversed. Causey v. Horry County (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-008-22, 12 pp.) (Stephanie McDonald, J.) (Thomas Huff, J., concurring in result only without separate opinion) Substituted opinion. Appealed from the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Francis Humphries, William Henry Monckton and Allison Paige Sullivan for appellant; Roy Allen Howell and Kirsten Leslie Barr for respondents. S.C. App. Unpub.

S. Carolina tries early voting even as other states restrict BY JEFFREY COLLINS ASSOCIATED PRESS COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina election officials are preparing for early voting for the first time in next month’s primaries, expanding the ability to vote in an era when many other states are passing laws to make it harder to cast ballots. Republicans, Democrats and election officials all came together to pass the new law. They predict that more voters will turn out, especially in November, when they learn they can cast ballots for two weeks before Election Day. Republican Gov. Henry McMaster held a ceremonial signing of the bill Wednesday afternoon.. Standing to his left was state Democratic Party Chair-

man Trav Robertson. “Allowing us two weeks of early vote sends a clear message that South Carolina wants to continue to make sure our elections are run aboveboard ... and beyond reproach but most importantly. they’re run effectively and efficiently,” Robertson said. The governor actually put his pen to the act on Friday, a day after the legislation passed, so that local election officials could have as much time as possible to plan for the start of early voting on May 31. South Carolina’s primaries are June 14. “This is a momentous piece of legislation when other states are going a different direction,” said Isaac Cramer, executive director of Charleston County’s Board of Elections. The new law is a compromise piece

of legislation that Republicans have touted with the motto “easier to vote. — harder to cheat.” Democrats agreed to the bill every step of the way. Polling places will open for regular early voting for two weeks excluding Sundays. Every county has to have at least one polling place, with larger counties considering multiple locations. They have to finalize plans by next week. South Carolina will be the 45th state to allow anyone, for whatever reason, to vote before Election Day. “All our voters can know it’s not on them to come up with an excuse to vote early. That was a huge burden,” said Rep. Brandon Newton, a Republican who took the lead on the election bill in the House. On the security side, absentee ballots would be restricted to mail-in only

and for specific excuses, such as voters over age 65, people who are disabled or whose work schedule prevents them from getting to the polls. The new law makes voter fraud a felony and increases fines and possible jail time for people who try to vote under a false name or vote more than once, or poll managers who intentionally break the law. The law requires state-run audits in the days after an election. South Carolina counties received a dry run for early voting in 2020 when lawmakers allowed a hybrid system where anyone could cast an absentee ballot in person at an election office or by mail because of the COVID-19 pandemic. S e e P a g e 10 ►

NEWS / 9

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I May 23, 2022

Biden warns of 'another tough hurricane season' this year BY ZEKE MILLER AND CHRIS MEGERIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS JOINT BASE ANDREWS, Md. (AP) — President Joe Biden warned Wednesday that the country will likely see “another tough hurricane season” this year, and he pledged that his administration was prepared to respond to the storms and help Americans recover from them. “We know hurricanes are coming our way. They grow more extreme every season,” Biden said before a briefing from top federal officials, including Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Deanne Criswell and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Marcia Fudge. Biden urged Americans to “pay attention to hurricane warnings and follow the guidance of your local authorities.” Before his remarks, Biden toured a hangar at Joint Base Andrews to view aircraft used to track and respond to hurricanes. One of the planes is used to fly through and above the storms, capturing data that allow meteorologists to produce more accurate forecasts. “It is really amazing what you all do to protect us,” Biden said. Last year’s worst storm was Hurricane Ida, which resulted in $75 billion in damage and 55 deaths. Although the initial impact was in Louisiana, where the category four

President Joe Biden speaks during a briefing on preparing for and responding to hurricanes this season at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., Wednesday May 18, 2022. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

storm made landfall, it also caused heavy rain and flooding in the MidAtlantic and Northeast. Biden visited damaged neighborhoods in New Jersey and New York after Ida struck, warning that climate change has become “everybody’s crisis” and represents a “code red” danger. “The threat is here. It is not getting any better,” Biden said then. “The question is can it get worse. We

can stop it from getting worse.” However, even though Biden has increased the country’s ambitions for slashing greenhouse gas emissions, he’s been unable to reach a consensus with Democrats in the Senate over how to tackle climate change. This year, Colorado State, the University of Arizona and Accuweather are all forecasting a busierthan-average hurricane season. Kenneth Graham, director of the

National Hurricane Center, frequently points out that the United States has had more category 4 and 5 hurricanes make landfall from 2017 to 2021 than from 1963 to 2016. This year, he recently told a Florida television station:: “It looks like we are going to be busy again.” ___ Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report.

SOUTH CAROLINA CHAPTER Check AVAILABLE DATES for the State’s Top-Rated Mediators at www.SCMEDIATORS.org

Ellen Adams Columbia (803) 255-0426

Jon Austen Charleston (843) 727-2271

Bob Calamari Myrtle Beach (843) 946-5660

Sam Clawson Charleston (800) 774-8242

Theron Cochran Greenville (864) 298-2721

Danny Crowe Columbia (803) 888-3936

Anne Culbreath Greenville (864) 672-3713

Cynthia Dooley Columbia (803) 227-4209

Vernon Dunbar Greenville (864) 239-6735

Earl Ellis Columbia (803) 260-0235

Eric Englebardt Greenville (864) 232-2329

Karl Folkens Florence (843) 665-0100

Amy Gaffney Columbia (803) 790-8838

Mills Gallivan Greenville (864) 271-5341

Harry Goldberg Columbia (803) 765-2935

Jack Griffeth Greenville (864) 349-2600

Mitch Griffith Beaufort (843) 521-4242

Rob Hassold Greenville (864) 325-7467

Richard Hinson Florence (843) 799-5599

Becky Laffitte Columbia (803) 231-7831

Regina H. Lewis Columbia (803) 790-8838

Bill Lyles Charleston (843) 696-6294

Stuart Mauney Greenville (864) 271-5356

David McCormack Charleston (843) 789-9153

Ben McCoy Columbia (803) 758-6000

Lee Plumblee Greenville (864) 235-2600

Darren Sanders Mt. Pleasant (843) 714-7661

Franklin Shuler Columbia (803) 227-4242

Lana Sims, Jr. Columbia (803) 995-4342

Ronald Stanley Columbia (803) 799-4700

Tom Stephenson Greenville (864) 370-9400

Matt Story Charleston (843) 577-2026

John Tiller Charleston (843) 722-3366

Walter B. Todd, Jr. Columbia (803) 753-7952

Ned Tupper Beaufort (843) 524-1116

Brad Waring Charleston (843) 277-3700

Derrick Williams Columbia (803) 929-0029

Thomas Wills Charleston (843) 727-1144

Check your preferred available dates online or schedule appointments directly with Academy Members, for free.

www.SCMediators.org

Need a top rated mediator or arbitrator outside of South Carolina? Please visit NADN’s free National Directory at www.NADN.org

10 / NEWS C o nt inu e d f r o m 8 ►

Cramer said that has been a big help preparing for early voting this year. Because of the short time period between the General Assembly passing the law and upcoming elections, he thinks at least 4 of 5 votes will still be cast in person for next month’s primaries. But he expects early voting to represent about 50% of ballots cast in November’s general election. “Voters are going to want and expect early voting. I think those numbers are just going to keep trending up,” Cramer said. Another benefit to early voting is flexibility. If the numbers are greater in Charleston County than expected, Cramer said he can send more people and voting machines to a location and cut wait times, which is nearly impos-

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I M ay 23, 2022

sible when all polling places are open on Election Day. And the new law should help produce election results faster, too. Ballots are fed into a scanner immediately after they are cast. The results must be kept secret until the polls close, but those results can be immediately released instead of having to scan in thousands of ballots under the absentee system. “We don’t want to be like states around the country that took six or seven days to count their ballots,” Newton said. ___ This story has been edited to clarify that the bill didn’t specify what percentage of votes require an audit. Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster ceremonially signs a bill allowing early voting in the state on Wednesday, May 18, 2022, in Columbia, S.C. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

South Carolina governor signs transgender sports ban bill BY JEFFREY COLLINS ASSOCIATED PRESS COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina’s governor has quietly signed into law a bill that would ban transgender students from playing girls’ or women’s sports in public schools and colleges as the state joins about a dozen others that have passed similar laws in the past two years. The bill was one of 43 acts Gov. Henry McMaster signed into law Monday with no fanfare or ceremony. McMaster posted on Twitter the day after that he was proud to enact the proposal to protect young men and women. Just before the Republican-dominated General Assembly passed the proposal earlier this month, McMaster said “I think the girls ought to play girls and the boys ought to play boys. That’s the way we’ve always done it.” When asked if he meant biological boys, the Republican governor responded “are there any other kind?” The law requires transgender students to compete with the “biological sex” listed on their birth certificates “filed at or near the time” of birth. Supporters of a ban warn that in a rapidly changing society transgender girls would have an unfair biological advantage from having been born stronger males. They suggest girl winners’ podiums and MVP awards could be taken over by transgender athletes

to the detriment of sports in places like South Carolina where it is a vital part of school life. Opponents of the bill said it is a cruel idea, singling out students who are not elite athletes but are just looking for a way to be a regular student, hanging out with friends and learning life lessons through competition. “Transgender youth are not a threat to fairness in sports, and this law now needlessly stigmatizes young people who are simply trying to navigate their adolescence, make friends, and build skills like teamwork and leadership, winning and losing,” said Ivy Hill a leader of a coalition of more than 30 groups committed to LGBTQ equality. South Carolina is the latest place to join a growing group of mostly conservative states requiring transgender students to compete with the gender listed on their birth certificates. Governors in Oklahoma and Arizona signed their laws at the end of March and Tennessee’s governor signed a bill earlier this month. The idea began emerging in legislatures about two years ago. Idaho passed the first of such legislation in 2020. Its law and a similar law in West Virginia have both been blocked by courts. The lawyer for conservative Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom said girls deserve to compete on a level playing field. “We welcome South Carolina to the

South Carolina Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, left, asks questions to Sen. Richard Cash, R-Powdersville, right, during a debate over transgender athletes playing sports on Tuesday, May 3, 2022, in Columbia, S.C. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

growing number of states that have acted to preserve fair competition for all females, whether in grade school or college. When the law ignores biological differences, it’s women and girls who bear the brunt of the harm,” alliance attorney Christiana Kiefer said in a statement. In South Carolina, the High School League currently handles questions of whether a student should compete on boys or girls teams on a case-by-case basis and has dealt with less than a half-dozen cases in five years. Research on children who identify as transgender is just beginning. A study released earlier this month online in Pediatrics found children who begin

identifying as transgender at a young age tend to retain that identity at least for several years. But the study dealt mostly with children from white, highincome families who supported their transitions. South Carolina lawmakers have yet to take up proposals passed in other conservative states like Texas, where Gov. Gregg Abbott has directed state agencies to consider placing transgender children in foster care or measures prohibiting gender-affirming health care treatments for transgender youth. ___ Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP.

Deputy stands trial after SC women drowned in police van BY JEFFREY COLLINS ASSOCIATED PRESS COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A deputy charged in the deaths of two women who drowned in a locked police van in 2018 ignored barricades and drove into rapidly rising floodwaters against advice from his supervisors and officials on the South Carolina highway, a prosecutor said Monday. Former Horry County deputy Stephen Flood is on trial on two counts of involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide for the drownings of the women he was taking to mental health facilities under a court order as rain from Hurricane Florence inundated eastern South Carolina. Flood faces up to five years in prison if convicted of involuntary manslaughter and 10 years in prison for each reckless homicide charges. Flood could have prevented the deaths of Wendy Newton, 45, and Nicolette Green, 43, four separate times

that evening, Solicitor Ed Clements said in his opening statement Monday at the Marion County courthouse. First, he could have listened to people in the Horry County Sheriff’s Office to avoid the shortest route which was along a highway that had flooded in major storms before, Clements said. Flood then drove around barricades closing state Highway 9 near Nichols, ignored National Guard troops in the road past the barricades who warned them the water was too deep to drive through and drove his police transport van into water covering the highway near the Little Pee Dee River bridge, the prosecutor said. Clements told jurors they would see drone footage as crews tried to save the women. “All you can see is water everywhere. Once he got in there and got stuck, there was nothing he could do,” the prosecutor said. “It was stubbornness. I hate to call someone stupid, but this was a stupid act that took the lives

of two ladies.” Flood’s attorney told jurors if Flood was stubborn it would have shown up in decades of his military and police employment records. Defense attorney Jarrett Bouchette said the wreck and the death of the women was a tragedy, but argued the blame should be shouldered by others, including the county for putting the inmates in a van with only one way out, Flood’s supervisors for encouraging Flood to always take the most direct and shortest route, as well as the officers just past the barricades who let Flood go by without stopping him. “The state is hoping they can make Steve Flood the scapegoat for this terrible, tragic accident, but that’s all it was – an accident,” Bouchette said. The transport van either hit something on the submerged highway or the road crumbled beneath them, investigators said. The van then flipped on its side in the water, blocking the door the woman used to get into the cage.

The water was only a few inches deep when the van flipped, but the Little Pee Dee River rose fast, nearly submerging the vehicle in an hour, officials said. Flood and a second deputy with him did not have the right key for a second door that wasn’t blocked and there was no emergency release to let the women out, investigators said. They tried to shoot off the locks, but couldn’t and Flood stayed with the van even though he couldn’t swim, Bouchette said. There were dozens of officers nearby dealing with the flood and the deputies called for help immediately, but, as the water kept rising, it took an hour to rescue the officers and get to the women, Bouchette said. Flood thinks about the incident every day, his lawyer said. “If he’s able to sleep, it will be with him in his dreams,” Bouchette said. Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP.

VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS / 11

S O U T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I May 23, 2022

County not liable for erosion, property collapse BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com After a two-and-a-half-day trial, an Orangeburg County jury has found the county not liable for damage done to a man’s waterfront property by an alleged faulty drainage system. Mike Montgomery of Montgomery Willard in Columbia represented Orangeburg County and said that the matter has to do with a Eutawville home that sits on the shores of Lake Marion and the drainage system that empties surface water from the road into the lake. Like many of his neighbors, plaintiff Ray Ardis protected his property — which features a steep slope near the water — from lake water with a seawall and retaining wall. The seawall began to fail in 2016 during Hurricane Andrew, Montgomery said, causing soil from Ardis’ yard to wash into the lake. According to Ardis complaint, the county allowed the drainage system to fall into disrepair despite numerous notices and complaints. “He alleged that the drainage pipe was damaged and defective, and that the County had failed to maintain the pipe properly,” Montgomery said. “He further alleged that the faulty

pipe was the cause of his loss.” Ardis sued the county in 2018. At trial, he testified that it would cost more than $300,000 to repair his property and that he had suffered a diminution in the value of his home to the tune of approximately $600,000. Montgomery said that pipe was not defective, but that a storm had caused a section in the lake to become disconnected from the pipe. “Defense experts testified that the broken section was not the cause of Mr. Ardis’ loss, but instead, his loss resulted from storms and water acting on a worn-out retaining wall,” Montgomery said. Evidence was introduced that there were similar problems on the property before a repair of the wall in 1998. However, Mr. Ardis attributed those to street runoff before the road was paved and the storm drainage system was constructed. The jury returned its verdict for the defense after deliberating less than 30 minutes, Montgomery said. The plaintiff was represented by Skyler Hutto and Virginia Williams of Williams & Williams in Orangeburg. Neither attorney responded to a request for comment.

VERDICT REPORT — NEGLIGENCE/TRESPASS

Amount: $0 (Defense verdict) Injuries alleged: Damage to seawall, bulkhead, massive erosion, collapse of property Case name: Ray Ardis v. Orangeburg County Court: Orangeburg County Circuit Court Case No.: 2018-CP-38-00633 Judge: Edgar Dickson Date of verdict: March 27 Demand: $300,000 Highest offer: $30,000 Most helpful experts: Glenn Stewart (engineering design and testing) and Michael Murray (American Dock & Marine Construction) Insurance carrier: South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund Attorneys for plaintiff: Skyler Hutto and Virginia Williams of Williams & Williams in Orangeburg Attorney for defendant: Mike Montgomery of Montgomery Willard in Columbia

Distracted driver settles for $10M BY HEATH HAMACHER hhamacher@sclawyersweekly.com

The estate of a man killed in a multi-car crash in Mount Pleasant has settled its wrongful death claims for $10 million against a driver who admitted to being distracted at the time of the crash, the plaintiffs’ attorney reports. Justin Kahn of Kahn Law Firm in Charleston said that the plaintiff, a 73-year-old retired pastor was killed last summer after being rearended by a Chevy Tahoe as he was stopped in traffic on Highway 17. Kahn said that the SUV pushed the plaintiff’s car into other vehicles, crushing it. “The retired pastor was conscious at the scene but suffered mortal internal injuries,”

Kahn said. “He was taken to a local hospital and died later that night.” Kahn’s three adult children brought claims of wrongful death and survival against the at-fault driver, a 27-year-old man who admitted that he was “swiping on Tinder” instead of watching the road, and his father, whom plaintiffs claim negligently entrusted the SUV to his son, who has a “long history” of driving violations. “While this settlement in no way can replace all the love, support, and guidance this dedicated father gave his children, grandchildren, and community, it helps provide closure for his family and sends a strong message not to let bad drivers use your car,” Kahn said.

SETTLEMENT REPORT — MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH/WRONGFUL DEATH

Amount: $10 million Injuries alleged: Death Case name: Withheld Court: Charleston County Circuit Court Mediator: Tom Wills of Charleston Date of settlement: May 11 Insurance carrier: Withheld Attorney for plaintiff: Justin Kahn of Kahn Law Firm in Charleston Attorney(s) for defendant: Withheld

Send us your V&S LAWYER TO LAWYER / Directory

MEDIATIONS: TOM MILLIGAN

• OVER 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE • TRIAL LAWYER WHO HAS TRIED OVER 200 JURY TRIALS • CERTIFIED ARBITRATOR SINCE 1999 • CERTIFIED MEDIATOR SINCE 2001

PROFESSIONAL

CONVENIENT

OBJECTIVE

MILLIGAN & HERNS, PC

721 Long Point Road, Suite 401 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 843-971-6750 ❘ tom@milliganlawfirm.com

6 / OPINION DIGESTS

N O R T H C A R O L I N A L A W Y E R S W E E K LY I Ju n e 26, 2017

Considering a subscription to South Carolina Lawyers Weekly?

Smart move. Read South Carolina Lawyers Weekly to keep up with the latest in state legal news and court opinions. Visit sclawyersweekly.com/subscribe or call 877.615.9536