Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-270 - National Grange v. Chitwood

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

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.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-270
Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed May 2, 2012   


AFFIRMED


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 affirm[1] 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)).


   AFFIRMED.

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


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