Supreme court restores summary judgment for agent in crawl-space moisture dispute

Listen to this article

The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that a couple buying a home could not proceed against a listing agent over hidden moisture issues, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the circuit court’s summary judgment.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant negligently misrepresented a June 2018 wood-infestation (“CL-100”) report as “good” and failed to disclose earlier inspections showing elevated crawl-space moisture. Yet deposition testimony from the couple’s own broker, doomed their case: he insisted he never relied on the defendant’s characterization, planned from the outset to commission a fresh CL-100 “on our terms,” and understood the buyers bore responsibility for verifying repairs. The defendant had, in fact, supplied the plaintiffs with a Cornerstone inspection report documenting the same moisture concerns and a seller repair list detailing corrective measures. Because reasonable reliance is an essential element of negligent misrepresentation, and the record showed none, the justices held the buyers failed to create a genuine factual dispute.

The court likewise rejected the plaintiffs’ claim under the South Carolina Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act. The statute imposes liability on sellers who knowingly omit material facts but shields real-estate licensees unless they have actual knowledge; it creates no independent private right of action against agents. While the Act preserves traditional tort remedies, the plaintiffs’ negligence-based theories already failed for lack of reliance.

Addressing the defendant’s procedural contention, the court clarified that Rule 56 does not allow cases to survive on a “mere scintilla” of evidence; plaintiffs must point to specific facts indicating each element can be proven at trial. Absent such proof, summary judgment promotes transactional certainty and spares professionals the burden of defending speculative claims.

Accordingly, all causes against the defendant were dismissed and the circuit court’s order was fully reinstated.

The 10-page opinion is Isaac v. Onions, I.C. Lawyers’ Weekly No. 010-024-25.