Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-367 - B.P. Staff, Inc. v. Guarantee Insurance Company

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


B.P. Staff, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Guarantee Insurance Company, SunCoast Holdings, Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bankers Bank, GrandSouth Bank, Respondent.


Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-367
Submitted April, 2009 – Filed June 25, 2009


AFFIRMED


Timothy E. Madden and Dowse B. Rustin, IV, both of Greenville, for Appellant.

W. Duvall Spruill, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Guarantee Insurance previously served as the workers' compensation insurance policy provider for B.P. Staff, Inc., a staffing services company.  B.P. Staff appeals the denial of a temporary injunction to enjoin Guarantee from drawing upon a letter of credit collateralized with B.P. Staff's assets.[1]  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Levine v. Spartanburg Reg'l Servs. Dist., Inc., 367 S.C. 458, 463, 626 S.E.2d 38, 41 (Ct. App. 2005) (intervention by court of equity is discretionary); Strategic Res. Co. v. BCS Life Ins. Co., 367 S.C. 540, 544, 627 S.E.2d 687, 689 (2006) (order granting or denying an injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Levine, 367 S.C. at 464, 626 S.E.2d at 41 (plaintiff must show: (1) it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (2) it will likely succeed in the litigation; and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law); Calcutt v. Calcutt, 282 S.C. 565, 572, 379 S.E.2d 55, 59 (Ct. App. 1984) (the party seeking an injunction has the burden of demonstrating facts and circumstances warranting an injunction); Strategic, 367 S.C. at 544, 627 S.E.2d at 689 ("The court will reserve its equitable powers for situations when there is no adequate remedy at law."); Scratch Golf Co., v. Dunes West Residential Golf Props., Inc., 361 S.C. 117, 121-22, 603 S.E.2d 905, 908 (2004) (injunction inappropriate where plaintiff failed to establish that it lacked adequate remedy at law to collect damages in breach of contract and negligence suit against developer); Levine, 367 S.C. at 464, 626 S.E.2d at 41 (providing the harm shown must be irreparable in order to trigger the drastic remedy of an injunction); Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 248, 449 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1994) ("The court's duty is to enforce the contract made by the parties regardless of its wisdom or folly, apparent unreasonableness, or the parties' failure to guard their rights carefully."); MailSource, LLC v. M.A. Bailey & Assocs., 356 S.C. 363, 370, 588 S.E.2d 635, 639 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion where there was a close question as to whether an injunction should issue).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


[1] We find Guarantee's argument that B.P. Staff was required to file a separate initial brief for the form order, the detailed written order, and the order denying supersedeas and motion to stay to be without merit.

[2] The decision in this case was delayed upon request of the parties.  We decide this case without oral arguments pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.