Creative Communication v. Travelers

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

Creative Communication Services, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America and PAD Able Inc., d/b/a Harold
R. Beard Agency, Defendants,

Of whom, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2009-124486

Appeal From Richland County

Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-317

Heard May 7, 2012 – Filed May 23, 2012

AFFIRMED

Byron
P. Roberts and Rebecca Anne Roberts, both of Chapin, for Appellant.

Ian
Douglas McVey and Richard C. Detwiler, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

FEW, C.J.: Creative
Communication Services, Inc., filed suit against Travelers Property Casualty
Company of America alleging Travelers breached a workers' compensation
insurance policy.  Travelers answered and counterclaimed alleging Creative
Communication breached the insurance contract.  Travelers claimed an audit
showed Creative Communication owed $52,208.00 in additional premium.  Creative
Communication argued Travelers incorrectly calculated the revised premium by
treating its subcontractors as employees.  The jury returned a verdict in favor
of Travelers and awarded $3,500.00 in damages.  Travelers made a motion for a
new trial nisi additur.  The trial court denied the motion, and Travelers
appeals arguing the only damages amount the jury could have awarded is the
$52,208.00 additional premium.  We disagree and affirm the trial court's
decision to deny the motion.

"The trial court has the power to grant a new
trial nisi additur when it finds the amount of the verdict to be merely
inadequate."  Manios v. Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP,
389 S.C. 126, 137, 697 S.E.2d 644, 650 (Ct. App. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted).  "The denial of a motion for additur is within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent
an abuse of discretion."  Id.  "There is no abuse of
discretion in the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial nisi where
there is evidence to support the verdict."  Id. 

We find the trial court articulated a valid theory for
denying the motion and did not abuse its discretion because there is evidence
to support the verdict.  See Manios, 389 S.C. at 138, 697 S.E.2d
at 650 ("Although it is unclear from the record exactly how the jury
arrived at its verdict of $53,088, there is evidence to support an award of
less than $316,225.").

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.