From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mathes Auto Sales, Inc. v. Morris

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 8, 2022
No. 2022-UP-253 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2022)

Opinion

2022-UP-253 Appellate Case 2019-000297

06-08-2022

Mathes Auto Sales, Inc., Respondent/Appellant, v. Otis Morris, Jr., Pro Bowl Motors, Inc., Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America, Inc., Gerald Scott Dixon, Michael Tyrone Moore, and Dixon's Automotive, LLC, Defendants, Of Whom Otis Morris, Jr., Pro Bowl Motors, Inc., Gerald Scott Dixon, Michael Tyrone Moore, and Dixon's Automotive, LLC, are the Appellants/Respondents.

Leland B. Greeley, of Leland B. Greeley, P.A., of Rock Hill, for Appellants/Respondents Dixon Automotive, LLC, Gerald S. Dixon, and Michael T. Moore. H. Ronald Stanley, of the Stanley Law Group, of Columbia, for Appellants/Respondents Otis Morris, Jr., and Pro Bowl Motors. J. Gregory Studemeyer, of Irmo, for Respondent/Appellant Mathes Auto Sales, Inc.


THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted May 2, 2022

Withdrawn, Substituted, and Refiled July 20, 2022

Appeal From Richland County Joseph M. Strickland, Master-in-Equity

Leland B. Greeley, of Leland B. Greeley, P.A., of Rock Hill, for Appellants/Respondents Dixon Automotive, LLC, Gerald S. Dixon, and Michael T. Moore.

H. Ronald Stanley, of the Stanley Law Group, of Columbia, for Appellants/Respondents Otis Morris, Jr., and Pro Bowl Motors.

J. Gregory Studemeyer, of Irmo, for Respondent/Appellant Mathes Auto Sales, Inc.

PER CURIAM

Mathes Auto Sales, Inc. (MAS) filed this action against Otis Morris, Jr., Pro Bowl Motors, Inc. (Pro Bowl), Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America, Inc. (Travelers), Gerald Scott Dixon, Michael Tyrone Moore, and Dixon's Automotive, LLC, alleging conversion, negligence, and violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) and the Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act (Dealers Act). After a bench trial, the master-in-equity awarded MAS $70,736 in actual damages, $212,208 in punitive damages, and $102,489 in attorney's fees and costs. Morris and Pro Bowl appeal, arguing the master failed to set off the award with the amount MAS received in settlements and in calculating the punitive damages award. Dixon, Moore, and Dixon's Automotive appeal, arguing the master erred in denying their motion for nonsuit and in adding Dixon and Moore as individual defendants. MAS appeals, arguing the master erred in failing to award lost profits. We affirm as modified pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

1. We hold the master did not err in failing to set off the award with the amount MAS received in settlements. See Bardsley v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 405 S.C. 68, 78, 747 S.E.2d 436, 441 (2013) ("The collateral source rule provides that compensation which an injured party receives from a source wholly independent of a wrongdoer will not reduce the damages for which the wrongdoer is liable."); id. (explaining the collateral source rule exists because "reducing recovery by the amount of the benefits received by the plaintiff would grant a windfall to the defendant . . . . If there is a windfall, it is considered more just that the injured person profit rather than grant the wrongdoer relief." (quoting 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 392)).

2. We modify the master's order regarding the award of punitive damages. Under the Dealers Act, the master awarded actual damages of $35,368, doubled the award to $70,736, and awarded punitive damages of three times the $70,736, or $212,208. MAS conceded the punitive damages award should have been three times the actual damages rather than three times the doubled damages. We modify the award of punitive damages to $106,104, which is three times the actual damages of $35,368. See S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-110(3) (2018) (providing for three times actual damages in an award of punitive damages under the Dealers Act).

3. We find no error by the master in denying the motion for a nonsuit. See Rule 41(b), SCRCP (stating the defendant in a non-jury action may move for an involuntary nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's case on the ground that "upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief"); Shepard v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 299 S.C. 370, 372, 385 S.E.2d 35, 36 (Ct. App. 1989) ("In an action at law tried before a judge sitting without a jury, the trial judge's findings of fact have the same force and effect as a jury verdict and are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence."); id. ("If there is any evidence which reasonably tends to support the judge's findings, the judgment must be affirmed."); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-40(B) (Supp. 2021) (providing that it is a violation of the Dealers Act for a dealer "to engage in any action which is arbitrary, in bad faith, or unconscionable and which causes damage to any of the parties or to the public"); Taylor v. Nix, 307 S.C. 551, 555, 416 S.E.2d 619, 621 (1992) ("Arbitrary conduct is readily definable and includes acts which are unreasonable, capricious or nonrational; not done according to reason or judgment; depending on will alone.").

4. We affirm the master's order adding Dixon and Moore as individual defendants. Collins Ent. Inc. v. White, 363 S.C. 546, 562, 611 S.E.2d 262, 270 (Ct. App. 2005) ("It is well established that a motion to amend is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the party opposing the motion has the burden of establishing prejudice."); id. ("Amendments to conform to the proof should be liberally allowed when no prejudice to the opposing party will result.").

5. We find no error in the master's failure to award lost profits. See Taylor, 307 S.C. at 556, 416 S.E.2d at 622 ("[O]nly damages incurred as a result of the conduct in violation of [the Dealers Act] are recoverable and subject to doubling and punitive damages."); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-110(1) (2018) (providing "any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in this chapter may sue therefor in the court of common pleas and shall recover double the actual damages by him sustained"); Austin v. Specialty Transp. Servs., Inc., 358 S.C. 298, 311, 594 S.E.2d 867, 873 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Our task in reviewing a damages award is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine if there is any evidence to support the damages award.").

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mathes Auto Sales, Inc. v. Morris

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 8, 2022
No. 2022-UP-253 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2022)
Case details for

Mathes Auto Sales, Inc. v. Morris

Case Details

Full title:Mathes Auto Sales, Inc., Respondent/Appellant, v. Otis Morris, Jr., Pro…

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Jun 8, 2022

Citations

No. 2022-UP-253 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 8, 2022)