National Grange v. Chitwood

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

National Grange
Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent,

v.

Phoenix
Contract Glass, LLC, C. Brent Chitwood, Linda N. Chitwood, Ronald L. Clark,
Susan F. Clark, Henry H. Graham, III, and Renee L. Graham, Defendants,

Of Whom C.
Brent Chitwood, Linda N. Chitwood,  Ronald L. Clark, and Susan F. Clark are
the Appellants.

Appeal From Richland County

James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-270

Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed May 2,
2012   

AFFIRMED

M. Baron Stanton, of Columbia, and Brent
Chitwood, pro se, of Irmo, for Appellants.

Mason A. Summers, Francis M. Mack, and
Emily R. Gifford, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brent and Linda Chitwood and Ronald and Susan Clark
appeal the trial court's order granting National Grange Mutual Insurance
Company's motion for a new trial absolute.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Dillon v.
Frazer,  383 S.C. 59, 63, 678 S.E.2d 251, 253 (2009) ("The
trial court has sound discretion when addressing questions of excessiveness or
inadequacy of verdicts, and its decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse
of discretion. The trial court must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of
the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of
the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion,
caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption or some other improper motive."
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); Lane v. Gilbert Constr.
Co., 383 S.C. 590, 597-98, 681 S.E.2d 879, 883 (2009) ("Upon
review, a trial [court]'s order granting or denying a new trial will be upheld
unless the order is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or the conclusion
reached was controlled by an error of law. This Court's review is limited to
consideration of whether evidence exists to support the trial court's order. As
long as there is conflicting evidence, this Court has
held the trial [court]'s grant of a new trial will not be disturbed." (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted)).

   AFFIRMED.

FEW,
C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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