Defense verdict: Jury turns back lawsuit from pandemic-inspired claim

Listen to this article

Action: Breach of contract and violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act

Injuries alleged: Breach of contract, unfair trade practice act, breach of warranty

Case name: HHBC Inc. v. Jamis Bicycles

Court/case no.: Beaufort County Common Pleas / 2021-CP-07-00143

Judge: Bobby Bonds

Injuries alleged: $1.03 million (subject to tripling and addition of attorney’s fees to an estimated $4.5 million)

Date: March 19, 2024

Most helpful expert: George Durant, CPA, Columbia

Attorneys: Ashley Twombley and Thomas Iandoli of Twenge + Twombley, Beaufort (for the defendant); John Bowen of Laughlin & Bowen, Hilton Head (for the plaintiff)

In 2021, plaintiff Hilton Head Bicycle Co. sued Jamis Bicycle Corp., alleging defendant breached a bicycle supply contract and caused plaintiff more than $1 million in damages. Plaintiff further alleged that the manner in which defendant breached the contract violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, allowing plaintiff to seek treble damages and attorney’s fees. The total exposure was estimated to be $4.5 million.

A central issue at trial involved the unforeseen effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the supply chain, and whether these effects excused defendant from the alleged breach. This is one of the few known jury verdicts dealing with the unforeseen effects of COVID-19 and the South Carolina Uniform Commercial Code’s “commercial impracticably” provisions.

Another central issue involved plaintiff’s alleged damages, which were ultimately limited by the trial court judge before being presented to the jury. When plaintiff’s damages were presented to the jury, defendant alleged plaintiff’s damages claims were not supported by sufficient documentation (a calculation methodology, receipts, invoices, etc.) and amounted to little more than a homemade list of numbers set forth on a single sheet of paper. In closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel Ashley Twombley argued, “My children have prepared Christmas list with more detail than this wish list prepared by [plaintiff].”

After a six-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendant, concluding it did not breach the contract, and that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.