B.P. Staff, Inc. v. Guarantee Insurance 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

B.P.
Staff, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Guarantee
Insurance Company, SunCoast Holdings, Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Bankers Bank, GrandSouth Bank, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-367

Submitted April, 2009 – Filed June 25, 2009

AFFIRMED

Timothy E.
Madden and Dowse B. Rustin, IV, both of Greenville, for Appellant.

W. Duvall
Spruill, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Guarantee
Insurance previously served as the workers' compensation insurance policy
provider for B.P. Staff, Inc., a staffing services company.  B.P. Staff appeals
the denial of a temporary injunction to enjoin Guarantee from drawing upon a
letter of credit collateralized with B.P. Staff's assets.[1]  We
affirm[2] pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Levine v. Spartanburg
Reg'l Servs. Dist., Inc., 367 S.C. 458, 463, 626 S.E.2d 38, 41 (Ct. App.
2005) (intervention by court of equity is discretionary); Strategic Res. Co.
v. BCS Life Ins. Co., 367 S.C. 540, 544, 627 S.E.2d 687, 689 (2006) (order
granting or denying an injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Levine,
367 S.C. at 464, 626 S.E.2d at 41 (plaintiff must show: (1) it would suffer
irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (2) it will likely succeed
in the litigation; and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law); Calcutt v.
Calcutt, 282 S.C. 565, 572, 379 S.E.2d 55, 59 (Ct. App. 1984) (the party
seeking an injunction has the burden of demonstrating facts and circumstances
warranting an injunction); Strategic, 367 S.C. at 544, 627 S.E.2d at 689
("The court will reserve its equitable powers for situations when there is
no adequate remedy at law."); Scratch Golf Co., v. Dunes West
Residential Golf Props., Inc., 361 S.C. 117, 121-22, 603 S.E.2d 905, 908
(2004) (injunction inappropriate where plaintiff failed to establish that it
lacked adequate remedy at law to collect damages in breach of contract and negligence
suit against developer); Levine, 367 S.C. at 464, 626 S.E.2d at 41
(providing the harm shown must be irreparable in order to trigger the drastic
remedy of an injunction); Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 248, 449 S.E.2d
487, 488 (1994) ("The court's duty is to enforce the contract made by the
parties regardless of its wisdom or folly, apparent unreasonableness, or the
parties' failure to guard their rights carefully."); MailSource, LLC v.
M.A. Bailey & Assocs., 356 S.C. 363, 370, 588 S.E.2d 635, 639 (Ct. App.
2003) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion where there was a
close question as to whether an injunction should issue).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., and PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] We find
Guarantee's argument that B.P. Staff was required to file a separate initial
brief for the form order, the detailed written order, and the order denying
supersedeas and motion to stay to be without merit.

[2] The decision in this case was delayed upon request of
the parties.  We decide this case without oral arguments pursuant to Rule 215,
SCACR.