Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-440 - Bon Secour v. Barton Malow

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

Bon Secour St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Inc.; and CareAlliance Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Roper St. Francis Healthcare, Appellants,

v.

Barton Malow Company; HKS, Inc.; STO Corp.; Fort Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc.; CBC; Johns-Manville; Gulf Coast Building Systems, Inc.; Quorum Health Resources, Inc.; Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland; Kawneer Company, Inc.; and Jennings Paint and Glass Company, Inc., Defendants,

Of Whom STO Corp. is the Respondent.


Barton Malow Company, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiff

v.

Atlantic Coast Mechanical, Inc., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, ABG Caulking Contractors, Inc. a/k/a ABG Caulking, Inc. and/or ABG Caulking Contractors, Jennings Paint and Glass Co., Inc., and Old Republic Surety Company, Third-Party Defendants.


Appeal From Charleston County
Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-440
Submitted October 1, 2010 - Filed October 13, 2010


AFFIRMED


W. Jefferson Leath, Jr. and Michael S. Seekings, of Charleston, for Appellants.

Sandra L.W. Miller and Robert Fields, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Bon Secour St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Inc. and CareAlliance Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Roper St. Francis Healthcare (Appellants) appeal from the jury's general verdict in favor of STO Corp.  Although the trial court submitted to the jury the issue of Appellants' compliance with the statute of limitations, Appellants failed to argue this issue on appeal.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 406-07, 663 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2008) (stating under the two-issue rule, when a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more issues or defenses, and the verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense that has been presented to the jury free from error, the verdict will not be reversed); Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 566, 511 S.E.2d 372, 378 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding an "unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance"); Sierra v. Skelton, 307 S.C. 217, 225-26, 414 S.E.2d 169, 174-75 (Ct. App. 1992) (applying the two-issue rule to affirm a general jury verdict for the plaintiff where the trial court erred in its charge on abuse of process but the defendant alleged no error in submitting the plaintiff's remaining claim to the jury); Cole, 378 S.C. at 407, 663 S.E.2d at 34 (noting the two-issue rule is consistent with the established notion that the appellate courts in this state "exercise every reasonable presumption in favor of the validity of a general verdict"). 

AFFIRMED.

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