The case involved a dispute between former Lincoln-Mercury dealer Hyman and Ford Motor Co. over the validity of a 1996 general release Hyman signed upon termination of his dealership agreement, with Hyman seeking a declaratory judgment that the release was void due to duress along with damages for alleged violations of the South Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act. The court converted Ford's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and considered whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the release's enforceability. It held that the release was valid and enforceable, as Ford's conditioning of parts-return privileges on the release did not constitute duress under South Carolina law, given Ford's contractual rights and the limited consequences of non-execution. The court further noted that any challenge to the release came too late to support rescission.
The case involved former Food Lion employees Rickey Bryant, Stephen Bannister, Scottie Philbeck, and their families suing the company under ERISA Section 510 for alleged discriminatory terminations intended to prevent vesting in the Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, along with claims for COBRA health insurance continuation coverage and statutory penalties for inadequate notices. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the defendants, concluding that the terminations were not motivated by an intent to interfere with benefits and that the COBRA-related claims failed due to lack of qualifying events, improper classification of terminations, or untimeliness. The reasoning centered on statistical evidence showing that compliant employees typically vest, the absence of incentives or patterns linking supervisors to benefit forfeitures, constructive notice of legal requirements to the plaintiffs, and the irrelevance of certain witness testimony from non-similarly situated individuals.
This products liability case involved claims that a defective lift-gate latch on a 1985 Dodge Caravan minivan caused it to open during a 1994 rollover accident, ejecting and killing the plaintiff's son. The jury found for the plaintiff on theories including strict liability and negligent design, awarding $12.5 million in actual damages and $250 million in punitive damages. Chrysler moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence on negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages. The court denied the motion in relevant part, holding that Chrysler had failed to preserve certain arguments by not raising them in its Rule 50(a) motion at trial and that the evidence supported findings of reliance, proximate cause, and Chrysler's knowledge of the defect's dangers.
This case involves a contract dispute between Figgie International, a manufacturer of bottle-labeling equipment based in South Carolina, and Destileria Serralles, a Puerto Rico-based rum bottler, after equipment supplied under the agreement failed to perform as expected. The defendant moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer venue to the District of Puerto Rico or, alternatively, to dismiss the action for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). The court denied both requests, holding that venue was proper in South Carolina because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim—including contract negotiations, engineering, manufacturing, and shipping—occurred there. The court further determined that the defendant had not met its burden of showing that transfer to Puerto Rico would better serve the convenience of parties and witnesses.
The case involves consolidated diversity and federal question suits by three utility companies (SCE&G, Duke Power, and CP&L) against Westinghouse for damages arising from corrosion problems in Nuclear Steam Supply Systems purchased for nuclear power plants under contracts from the late 1960s and early 1970s. Plaintiffs alleged fraud in the inducement, negligent design and manufacture, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and warranty, deceptive trade practices, and civil RICO violations based on alleged misrepresentations about the systems' durability. On Westinghouse's Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation and design claims, certain RICO counts tied to a nuclear project enterprise, and other specified counts across the amended complaints for failure to state a claim, while denying dismissal as to the remaining claims such as fraud inducement. The rulings applied the standard of accepting all allegations as true and drawing inferences in plaintiffs' favor, with some contract-specific analysis regarding warranty expiration and tolling agreements.
This case arose from foundation damage at a steel plant caused by the expansive properties of steel slag used as backfill material under scales, a warehouse, and an oxygen separation plant, leading to negligence and warranty claims by Georgetown Steel Corporation (GSC) against testing firm PTL and engineering firm Law, as well as related claims by Union Carbide. On remand from the Fourth Circuit, the court determined that Law was negligent and breached its warranty to GSC by approving the slag without testing its suitability, awarding GSC $50,000 in damages subject to the contractual limitation of liability. The court further held that Law had no liability to Carbide for negligence or breach of implied or express warranty because no privity existed between them and the agency relationship between GSC and Carbide did not apply.