While actual authority is expressly conferred upon the agent by the principal, apparent authority is when the principal knowingly permits the agent to exercise authority, or the principal holds the agent out as possessing such authority." Id. (citing Moore v. North Am. Van Lines, 423 S.E.2d 116, 118 (S.C. 1992)). "While actual authority is expressly conferred upon the agent by the principal, apparent authority is when the principal knowingly permits the agent to exercise authority, or the principal holds the agent out as possessing such authority.

II. Ramco raises two issues on appeal: whether Voss is a statutory employee under the Act, and whether Voss is entitled, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-10 (1985), to file a workers' compensation claim in South Carolina. Because both issues are jurisdictional, seeAdams v. Davison-Paxon Co., 230 S.C. 532, 543, 96 S.E.2d 566, 571 (1957) (whether a worker is a statutory employee is a jurisdictional inquiry to be resolved by the court); Moore v. North American Van Lines, 310 S.C. 236, 423 S.E.2d 116 (1992) (treating as jurisdictional an inquiry into whether the claimant satisfied the requirements of section 42-15-10), this Court has the "power and duty to review the record and decide the issue in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence." Kirksey v. Assurance Tire Co., 311 S.C. 255, 256, 428 S.E.2d 721, 722 (Ct.App. 1993), aff'd, 314 S.C. 43, 443 S.E.2d 803 (1994); accordBrown v. Moorhead Oil Co., 239 S.C. 604, 124 S.E.2d 47 (1962).

(“[A]n agent's apparent authority originates with expressive conduct by the principal toward a third party through which the principal manifests assent to action by the agent with legal consequences for the principal.”); see also Moore v. N. Am. Van Lines, 423 S.E.2d 116, 118 (S.C. 1992) (“The basis of apparent authority is representations made by the principal to the third party and reliance by the third party on those representations.”)

Express authority is conferred expressly upon the agent by the principal. Moore v. North Am. Van Lines, 423 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1992).9. Apparent authority exists when a principal is bound by the acts of its agent when the principal has placed the agent in such a position that a person of ordinary prudence, reasonably knowledgeable with business usages and customs, is led to believe the agent has certain authority and the person deals with the agent based on that assumption.

While actual authority is expressly conferred upon the agent by the principal, apparent authority is when the principal knowingly permits the agent to exercise authority, or the principal holds the agent out as possessing such authority." Id. (citing Moore v. North Am. Van Lines, 423 S.E.2d 116, 118 (S.C. 1992)). Under South Carolina law, notice to the insured's agent may constitute notice to the insurer if the agent acquired knowledge within the scope of his agency relationship with the insurer.

"[A]ctual authority is expressly conferred upon the agent by the principal." Roberson v. S. Finance of South Carolina, Inc., 365 S.C. 6, 11 (2005) (citing Moore v. North Am. Van Lines, 310 S.C. 236, 239, 423 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1992)); see also Anderson Bros. Bank v. EBT Prop. Holding Co., Inc., 2013 WL 8507807, at *3 (S.C. Ct App. Mar. 13, 2013) ("Actual authority is expressly conferred upon the agent by the principal."). The amended complaint contains only allegations regarding Mr. Rainsford's conversations with Mr. Molony - it does not contain any allegations of Mr. Molony's actual authority as conferred by Apex.

"The basis of apparent authority is representations made by the principal to the third party and reliance by the third party on those representations." Moore v. North Am. Van Lines, 310 S.C. 236, 239, 423 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1992). In finding DDSN held out the Board and Gaither as its agents, the trial court relied on the definition of apparent agency stated in Simmons v. Tuomey Regional Medical Center, 341 S.C. 32, 51, 533 S.E.2d 312, 322 (2000):

Accordingly, the situs of the contract determines where an employee was hired for purposes of determining jurisdiction under § 42-15-10. Moore v. N. Amer. Van Linen, 310 S.C. 236, 238-39, 423 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1992). The place of contracting is where the minds of the parties meet or the place where the final act occurred which made a binding contract.

While actual authority is expressly conferred upon the agent by the principal, apparent authority is when the principal knowingly permits the agent to exercise authority, or the principal holds the agent out as possessing such authority. Moore v. North Am. Van Lines, 310 S.C. 236, 239, 423 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1992). Whether apparent authority can suffice to show authorization to accept service under Rule 4 is an unsettled question.

The circuit court reversed, finding the Commission did not have jurisdiction over the case because appellant was not hired in South Carolina. Accordingly, appellant was not entitled to benefits under State law. We affirmed the circuit court in Moore v. North American VanLines, 310 S.C. 236, 423 S.E.2d 116 (1992). Respondents paid benefits to appellant pursuant to the Commission's order until the circuit court reversed.