Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Phoenix Contract Glass, LLC

Full title: National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Phoenix Contract…

Court: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: May 2, 2012

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-270 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 2, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-270

05-02-2012

National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Phoenix Contract Glass, LLC, C. Brent Chitwood, Linda N. Chitwood, Ronald L. Clark, Susan F. Clark, Henry H. Graham, III, and Renee L. Graham, Defendants, Of Whom C. Brent Chitwood, Linda N. Chitwood, Ronald L. Clark, and Susan F. Clark are the Appellants.

M. Baron Stanton, of Columbia, and Brent Chitwood, pro se, of Irmo, for Appellants. Mason A. Summers, Francis M. Mack, and Emily R. Gifford, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted March 1, 2012.

Appeal From Richland County James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge.

M. Baron Stanton, of Columbia, and Brent Chitwood, pro se, of Irmo, for Appellants.

Mason A. Summers, Francis M. Mack, and Emily R. Gifford, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Brent and Linda Chitwood and Ronald and Susan Clark appeal the trial court's order granting National Grange Mutual Insurance Company's motion for a new trial absolute. We affirm¹ pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Dillon v. Frazer, 383 S.C. 59, 63, 678 S.E.2d 251, 253 (2009) ("The trial court has sound discretion when addressing questions of excessiveness or inadequacy of verdicts, and its decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. The trial court must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption or some other improper motive." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); Lane v. Gilbert Constr. Co., 383 S.C. 590, 597-98, 681 S.E.2d 879, 883 (2009) ("Upon review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new trial will be upheld unless the order is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion reached was controlled by an error of law. This Court's review is limited to consideration of whether evidence exists to support the trial court's order. As long as there is conflicting evidence, this Court has held the trial [court]'s grant of a new trial will not be disturbed." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

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

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.