Libel, Slander, Invasion of Privacy, Interference with Contract, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Civil Conspiracy - The Plaintiff owned a nursery for which he had a promissory note with the Defendant EFC. Plaintiff was going to sell the business to a third party. While the third party tried to obtain a loan from the Defendants in order to by the Plaintiff's nursery, the Defendants alledgedly disclosed private financial information of the Plaintiff's to the prospective third party buyer which resulted in a reduction of the sale price of the nursery. Plaintiff sued lender and its officers (EFC, Huggins, and Bishop) alleging libel, slander, invasion of privacy, interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and civil conspiracy. Before trial, the trial court granted EFC's motion for summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Outcome:
Defendant's Verdict - At close of Plaintiff s case, the trial court directed a verdict for EFC on the theories of civil conspiracy, slander, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court dismissed Bishop as a Defendant. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants on the libel claim. Only the claims of invasion of privacy, interference with contract, and interference with prospective economic advantage went to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Defendants EFC and Huggins as to the claims of interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage, and for defendant Huggins on the claim of invasion of privacy, but found that EFC was liable to Owner for invasion of privacy in the amount of $55,000.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
Affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Court of Appeals of South Carolina. See 483 S.E.2d 789. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. See 514 S.E.2d 126 (S.C. 1999). Note that the above cited date is the date of appellate decision and not the trial date. Reported by C.H.
What was the outcome of Swinton Creek Nursery and James M. Futch III v. Edisto Fa...?
The outcome was: Defendant's Verdict - At close of Plaintiff s case, the trial court directed a verdict for EFC on the theories of civil conspiracy, slander, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court dismissed Bishop as a Defendant. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants on the libel claim. Only the claims of invasion of privacy, interference with contract, and interference with prospective economic advantage went to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Defendants EFC and Huggins as to the claims of interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage, and for defendant Huggins on the claim of invasion of privacy, but found that EFC was liable to Owner for invasion of privacy in the amount of $55,000.
Which court heard Swinton Creek Nursery and James M. Futch III v. Edisto Fa...?
This case was heard in Circuit Court , Berkeley County , South Carolina, SC. The presiding judge was Marc H. Westbrook.
Who were the attorneys in Swinton Creek Nursery and James M. Futch III v. Edisto Fa...?
Plaintiff's attorney: G. Thomas Hill of Hill, Hill, & Hill, Johns Island, South Carolina. Defendant's attorney: Marvin C. Jones and Jennifer E. Dutyof Bogoslow & Jones, P.A., Walterboro, South Carolina.
When was Swinton Creek Nursery and James M. Futch III v. Edisto Fa... decided?