Twin Bridge Logistics, LLC v. Fisher Tank Company

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Twin Bridge Logistics, LLC n/k/a Twin Bridge
Transport, LLC, Appellant,

v.

Fisher Tank Company, f/k/a Fisher Tank Company, Inc.,
Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001181

Appeal From Lexington County
R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-014
Submitted November 1, 2021 – Filed January 12, 2022

AFFIRMED

William H. Edwards, of Moore Bradley Myers Law
Firm, of West Columbia, for Appellant.

William Joseph Moore, Jr., of Gertz & Moore, LLP, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Twin Bridge Logistics, LLC (Twin Bridge) appeals the circuit
court's grant of partial summary judgment in its action for breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, conversion, negligence, and bailment for
mutual benefit against Fisher Tank Company (Fisher Tank). On appeal, Twin
Bridge argues the circuit court erred in finding (1) its negligence and bailment for
mutual benefit claims were barred by the statute of limitations and (2) it was not
entitled to an award of interest. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities:

1. The circuit court properly found Twin Bridge's negligence and bailment for
mutual benefit claims were barred by the statute of limitations. See Town of
Summerville v. City of North Charleston, 378 S.C. 107, 109, 662 S.E.2d 40, 41
(2008) ("When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, an appellate court applies
the same standard used by the [circuit] court."); Rule 56(c), SCRCP ("[Summary
judgment] shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); Koester v. Carolina Rental Ctr., 313
S.C. 490, 493, 443 S.E.2d 392, 394 (1994) ("In determining whether any triable
issues of fact exist, the evidence and all inferences which can be reasonably drawn
from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-535 (2005) (explaining that causes of action for
negligence and bailment for mutual benefit "must be commenced within three
years after the person knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have
known that he had a cause of action"); Young v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 333 S.C. 714,
720, 511 S.E.2d 413, 416 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[T]he statute of limitations is not tolled
during the period of time in which a plaintiff is merely unaware of the extent of an
actionable injury."); Hubbard v. Taylor, 339 S.C. 582, 588, 529 S.E.2d 549, 552
(Ct. App. 2000) ("The elements for a cause of action for the tort of negligence are:
(1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty by the
defendant, and (3) damages proximately resulting from the breach of duty.");
Shoreland Freezers, Inc. v. Textile Ice & Fuel Co., 241 S.C. 537, 540-41, 129
S.E.2d 424, 425 (1963) ("[L]iability of a bailee under a bailment for mutual benefit
arises upon a showing that (1) the goods were delivered to the bailee in good
condition, (2) they were lost or returned in a damaged condition, and (3) the loss or
damage to the goods was due to the failure of the bailee to exercise ordinary care
in the safekeeping of the property."). The pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and
admissions on file indicate it was undisputed Twin Bridge's trailer was stolen from
Fisher Tank's premises; Twin Bridge learned of the theft on November 10, 2009;
and Twin Bridge filed its negligence and bailment for mutual benefit claims
seeking relief for the theft on July 2, 2014. Accordingly, the circuit court properly
found Twin Bridge's actions for negligence and bailment for mutual benefit
accrued on November 10, 2009, and were therefore barred by the statute of
limitations.

2. The circuit court properly found Twin Bridge was not entitled to an award of
interest. See Butler Contracting, Inc. v. Ct. St., LLC, 369 S.C. 121, 133, 631
S.E.2d 252, 259 (2006) ("Prejudgment interest is not allowed on an unliquidated
claim in the absence of an agreement or statute."). The pleadings, affidavits,
depositions, and admissions on file indicate it was undisputed there was no written
agreement in which Fisher Tank agreed to pay interest on any sums owed to Twin
Bridge. Accordingly, the circuit court properly found that Twin Bridge was not
entitled to an award of interest. To the extent Twin Bridge argues the circuit court
erred in finding it was not entitled to an award of statutory interest or to interest as
a measure of its damages for its conversion claim, these issues are unpreserved for
our review. See S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C.
295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) ("There are four basic requirements to
preserving issues at trial for appellate review. The issue must have been (1) raised
to and ruled upon by the [circuit] court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a
timely manner, and (4) raised to the [circuit] court with sufficient specificity."
(quoting Jean Hoefer Toal et al., Appellate Practice in South Carolina 57 (2d ed.
2002))).

AFFIRMED.1

KONDUROS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.