Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. Sutherland v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    Civil Action 6:21-cv-00671-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2022)

    Defendants assert, and Plaintiff does not challenge, that each of the common-law claims asserted fall within these two classifications and are, therefore, subject to a three-year statute of limitations. See (ECF Nos. 39-1 at 3-4; 60 at 7); see also Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., v. Columbia Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 974 F.2d 502, 506 (4th Cir. 1992) (noting that claims for civil conspiracy are governed by § 15-3-530(5) which sets a three-year statute of limitations); Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., 426 S.C. 1, 12, 825 S.E.2d 707, 713 (Ct. App. 2019) (noting the three-year statute of limitations applied to claims at issue including negligence and gross negligence); Wilson v. Jayma, App. No. 2017-002223, 2021 WL 4449623, at *2 (S.C. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2021) (citing Moore v. Benson, 390 S.C. 153, 160, 700 S.E.2d 273, 277 (Ct. App. 2010)) (noting South Carolina courts have found claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation are subject to the three-year statute of limitations provided in § 15-5-530).

  2. Bradley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    Civil Action 4:22-cv-1244-TLW-TER (D.S.C. Jul. 26, 2023)

    Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., 426 S.C. 1, 13, 825 S.E.2d 707, 713 (Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Dean, 321 S.C. at 363-64, 468 S.E.2d at 647).

  3. Stegelin v. Pac. Life Ins. Co.

    592 F. Supp. 3d 474 (D.S.C. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    This analysis is in keeping with the discovery rule, enumerated above, under which rule a limitations period commences "when the facts and circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some claim against another party might exist." Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assoc., Inc. , 426 S.C. 1, 825 S.E.2d 707, 713 (S. C Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. Robinson , 416 S.C. 517, 787 S.E.2d 485, 489 (2016) ). Reading the SAC in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Gugel had no reason to suspect he had received negligent investment advice or suffered damages until he realized that his FIP investment would not produce the promised payments he relied on to pay IUL premiums. As already stated, that did not occur until after FIP collapsed in April 2018.

  4. Atain Specialty Ins. Co. v. Carolina Prof'l Builders, LLC

    Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-2352-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    If Invoice # 1325 relates to damage that is part of McGrath's present claims in the Underlying Lawsuit, then McGrath through the exercise of reasonable diligence would have been on notice of "property damage" caused by construction defects in 2009, not 2014, rendering the Underlying Lawsuit untimely. See Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., Inc., 825 S.E.2d 707, 713 (S.C. Ct. App. 2019), reh'g denied (Apr. 19, 2019), cert. denied (Sept. 18, 2019) (affirming application of three-year statute of limitations to bar construction defect claim); see also Epstein v. Brown, 610 S.E.2d 816, 818 (S.C. 2005) ("The exercise of reasonable diligence means simply that an injured party must act with some promptness where the facts and circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded or that some claim against another party might exist."

  5. Hampton Hall, LLC v. Chapman Coyle Chapman & Assocs. Architects AIA, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 9:17-cv-1575-RMG (D.S.C. Apr. 2, 2019)

    So too here, once Plaintiff was aware of the recurrent water intrusion and damage in 2011, 2012 and 2013, it had discovered its community clubhouse causes of action under Centex and Stoneledge. Plaintiff's newly identified case, Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., Inc., No. 2016-000471, 2019 WL 208925, at *11 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2019), similarly supports this result, and held that the plaintiff was on notice of her claims as early as 1999 when she first reported leaks and engaged experts to repair the property, and at the latest in March 2009 when she retained counsel. Under either analysis, Plaintiff here was aware of repeated repairs and water intrusion in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and had worked with an in-house attorney to send a letter in both 2009 and 2012. -------- Plaintiff's motion and evidence focuses on Defendant Choate. Nonetheless, for the same reasons as above, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff was aware of his causes of action against Defendant CCC more than three years prior to filing suit.

  6. In re Huggins (Huggins v. Grant)

    658 B.R. 821 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2024)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that parol evidence was admissible despite presence of merger clause where contract was ambiguous

    Therefore, the statutory period of limitations begins to run when a person could or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that a cause of action might exist in his or her favor, rather than when a person obtains actual knowledge of either the potential claim or of the facts giving rise thereto." Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., Inc., 426 S.C. 1, 13, 825 S.E.2d 707, 713 (Ct. App. 2019) (emphasis in original) (quoting Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. Robinson, 416 S.C. 517, 525-26, 787 S.E.2d 485, 489-90 (2016)). The Supreme Court of South Carolina has "'interpreted the 'exercise of reasonable diligence' to mean that the injured party must act with some promptness' when on notice of a potential claim."

  7. O'Shields v. Piedmont Glass & Mirror Co.

    No. 2023-UP-256 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2023)

    Conflicting evidence as to the application of the discovery rule and the date a statute of limitations began to run present questions of fact. Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., 426 S.C. 1, 13, 825 S.E.2d 707, 713 (Ct. App. 2019).

  8. Hine v. McCrory

    No. 2023-UP-241 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 14, 2023)

    , we agree with the circuit court that the 2012 discovery triggered the running of the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., Inc., 426 S.C. 1, 17, 825 S.E.2d 707, 715 (Ct. App. 2019) (finding despite property owner's "actual knowledge of her potential claims for this damage-and repeated repair recommendations-[she] failed to pursue her claims in a timely manner" and property owner's "failure to comprehend the magnitude of the water intrusion and other defective conditions is immaterial.").

  9. Bernard v. 3 Chisolm St. Homeowners Ass'n

    No. 2022-UP-269 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, the trial court did not err in holding the statute of limitations barred Appellants' 2015 lawsuit against the HOA for negligence. See Allwin v. Russ Cooper Assocs., Inc., 426 S.C. 1, 13, 825 S.E.2d 707, 713 (Ct. App. 2019) ("Our supreme court has 'interpreted the 'exercise of reasonable diligence' to mean that the injured party must act with some promptness' when on notice of a potential claim." (quoting Dean v. Ruscon Corp., 321 S.C. 360, 363-64, 468 S.E.2d 645, 647 (1996)); Dorman v. Campbell, 331 S.C. 179, 184, 500 S.E.2d 786, 789 (Ct. App. 1998)