Chevrolet v. Azalea Motors

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

Chevrolet of
North Charleston, d/b/a Gene Reed Chevrolet, Inc., Plaintiff,  

v.

Azalea Motors,
LLC, Defendant/Third
Party Plaintiff,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendant,

of whom Azalea
Motors, LLC is the Appellant,

and South
Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles is the Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

Mikell R. Scarborough, Special Circuit
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-039

Heard October 6, 2010 – Filed February 1,
2011

AFFIRMED

Thomas R. Goldstein, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Stephanie Pendarvis McDonald and Robin L.
Jackson of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  On appeal, Azalea Motors, LLC, (Azalea) argues
the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on its claim for gross
negligence against the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (the
Department).  Specifically, Azalea asserts the trial court erred in concluding
the Department was neither liable under the public duty rule nor owed a "special
duty" to Azalea when the Department issued a South Carolina certificate of
title upon the presentment of a counterfeit Wisconsin certificate of title
bearing a vehicle identification number of a non-stolen vehicle.

In support of its argument, Azalea
contends the Department's failure to utilize a digital blue microscope to
ascertain the authenticity of the counterfeit Wisconsin certificate of title
constituted a breach of its duty of care pursuant to section 56-19-40 of the
South Carolina Code (2006).  Additionally, Azalea asserts the trial court erred in concluding the
Department did not violate sections 56-19-260 and 56-19-270 of the South
Carolina Code (2006).  In support of this argument, Azalea contends the trial
court erred by concluding (1) the Department properly issued a South Carolina
certificate of title when the Department conducted a National Crime Information
Center database search, which did not indicate the vehicle was stolen and (2)
the Department was obligated to issue the South Carolina certificate of title
when the Department's clerk did not have any "reasonable grounds" to
believe the counterfeit Wisconsin certificate of title contained a fraudulent
or false statement.  Rather, Azalea contends the Department has a duty to
examine certificate of titles.

As an additional
ground for granting summary judgment in favor of the Department, the trial
court concluded Azalea's claim was also barred pursuant to the South Carolina
Tort Claims Act.  Azalea failed to appeal this ruling.  As a result, we affirm
the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department pursuant
to Rule 220 (b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Jones
v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692
S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is
based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the
appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law
of the case."). 

Accordingly, the trial court's
decision is

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and KONDUROS,
JJ., concur.