Opinion
2014-UP-320
08-13-2014
Ralph Thomas and Nancy Thomas, Respondents, v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. and Ridgeland Recreational Vehicles, Inc., d/b/a Boat N RV Megastore, Defendants, of whom Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. is the Appellant, and Ridgeland Recreational Vehicles, Inc., d/b/a Boat N RV Megastore, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2012-213361
Patrick M. Higgins and Jason Franklin Ward, both of Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA, of Beaufort, for Appellant. John Paul Detrick and Matthew Vernon Creech, both of Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of Hampton, and John Lawrence Duffy, III, of The Duffy Law Firm, LLC, of North Charleston, for Respondents Ralph Thomas and Nancy Thomas; Matthew Todd Carroll, of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent Ridgeland Recreational Vehicles, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted July 1, 2014
Appeal From Jasper County Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge
Patrick M. Higgins and Jason Franklin Ward, both of Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA, of Beaufort, for Appellant.
John Paul Detrick and Matthew Vernon Creech, both of Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of Hampton, and John Lawrence Duffy, III, of The Duffy Law Firm, LLC, of North Charleston, for Respondents Ralph Thomas and Nancy Thomas; Matthew Todd Carroll, of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent Ridgeland Recreational Vehicles, Inc.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, 403 S.C. 53, 56, 742 S.E.2d 359, 360 (2013) ("Generally, an arbitration award is conclusive and courts will refuse to review the merits of an award." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. (noting "[a]n award will be vacated only under narrow, limited circumstances, " such as when the arbitrator "manifestly disregards or perversely misconstrues the law"); id. (explaining an arbitrator manifestly disregards the law and creates a basis for vacating his award "when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it"); Gissel v. Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 241, 676 S.E.2d 320, 323 (2009) ("Case law presupposes something beyond a mere error in construing or applying the law.").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.