Taghivand v. Rite Aid Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-016-15, 8 pp.) (Kaye Hearn, J.) (Costa Pleicones, J., concurring) On certification from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. S.C. S. Ct. Holding: Firing an employee for reporting ...

Tagged with: Public Policy

Williams v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-096-14, 19 pp.) (Donald Beatty, J.) (Costa Pleicones, J., joined by John Kittredge, J., concurring in part & dissenting in part) Appealed from Richland County Circuit Court (George James Jr., J.) ...

Tagged with: Auto Insurance Exclusion Public Policy

South Carolina law is generally rather unfavorable to employees who have been fired: the state’s “at will” doctrine allows an employer to fire an employee for any reason, or no reason at all. But the state recognizes one exception to the rule, the “public policy exception,” when a firing would violate a clear mandate of public policy. Since it is the only concession recognized by law, it’s a popular target for ex-employees suing for wrongful termination.

Tagged with: prison guard Public Policy Unemployment

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rhoden When a mother (who had underinsured motorist coverage on her own vehicles) and one of her daughters were injured in an accident while riding with another daughter (who did not have UIM coverage on her vehicle that was involved in the accident), the mother and the non-owner daughter are entitled to UIM benefits from the mother’s policy; however, the driver-daughter is not entitled to UIM benefits from the mother’s policy.

Tagged with: Auto Insurance Public Policy UIM

Barron v. Labor Finders of South Carolina Even though plaintiff was fired the day after she complained to her employer that she had not been paid all the commissions due her, since she never filed a complaint with the Department of Labor as required by Payment of Wages Act, nor did she ever indicate to the defendant-employer that she had filed or intended to file a complaint, plaintiff cannot show that she was fired in retaliation for availing herself of the protections of the Act. Although the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis, it properly affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer. We affirm as modified.

Tagged with: Labor & Employment Public Policy Tort/Negligence