Sterow, LLC v. The Town of Hilton Head Island

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

Sterow, LLC, Appellant,

v.

The Town of Hilton
Head Island, Respondent.

Appeal From Beaufort County

Honorable Marvin H. Dukes, III, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-201

Submitted March 1, 2010 – Filed March 12,
2010   

AFFIRMED

Edwin W. Rowland, of Okatie, for Appellant.

Gregory M. Alford and Scott M. Wild, of Hilton Head Island, for
Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  Sterow, LLC,
filed suit against the Town of Hilton Head Island (Town) sounding in gross
negligence for the Town's arbitrary and capricious denial of a business license
to Sterow's tenant.  Sterow appeals, arguing the master erred in granting the
Town's motion for summary judgment because the Town's denial of the special
exception constituted gross negligence as a matter of law and because Sterow
made its claims within the applicable statute of limitations.  Sterow also
argues the master erred by failing to address in its final order each and every
one of the arguments supporting the Town's motion for summary judgment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to
whether the master erred in
granting the Town's motion for summary judgment on the ground Sterow failed to
make its claims within the applicable statute of limitations:  S.C. Code Ann.
§15-78-110 (2005) ("[A]ny action brought pursuant to [the Tort Claims Act]
is forever barred unless an action is commenced within two years after the date
the loss was or should have been discovered. . . ."); Wiggins v.
Edwards, 314 S.C. 126, 128, 442 S.E.2d 169, 170 (1994) (requiring an
injured party to "act with some promptness where the facts and
circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and
experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded or that some claim
against another party might exist"). 

2. As
to Sterow's remaining issues:  Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown,
Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (ruling an appellate
court need not review remaining issues
when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal). 

AFFIRMED.  

PIEPER
and GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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