Addy's Harbor Dodge LLC v. Global Vehicles USA Incorporated
4:11-cv-01065
D.S.C.Sep 30, 2014Background
- AHD sued Global in the District of South Carolina for violations of the South Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act, after dismissals of Perez and Baez on personal jurisdiction; bench trial held September 15, 2014 with a nonjury trial consent.
- AHD elected remedies under the Act, dismissing a breach-of-contract-with-fraud claim and ceasing pursuit of piercing-the-corporate-veil claim.
- Global acted as a distributor under the Act; the dispute centers on alleged unfair or deceptive practices and non-delivery of Mahindra vehicles.
- Global/Mahindra Distributor Agreement granted exclusive US distribution to Global; homologation deadlines were extended multiple times; vehicle shipments were delayed and funding arrangements collapsed.
- AHD paid Global $195,000 as a dealer fee; court awards double actual damages under the Act and costs/attorneys’ fees, but denies punitive damages; judgment for AHD in the amount of $390,000 plus fees to be determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Global violate the Act as a distributor? | AHD contends Global’s acts were arbitrary and in bad faith under the Act. | Global contends its conduct falls within contractual contingencies and does not violate the Act. | Yes, Global violated the Act by arbitrary and bad-faith conduct. |
| What damages are recoverable under the Act? | AHD seeks double actual damages for the $195,000 paid. | Global disputes double damages; argues against punitive damages. | Double the actual damages awarded; i.e., $390,000, plus costs and fees. |
| Are punitive damages warranted? | AHD does not allege malice beyond the Act’s standard. | Global argues no malice shown. | Punitive damages not awarded; malice not proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Nix, 416 S.E.2d 619 (S.C. 1992) (defines arbitrary conduct under the Act as unreasonable or capricious)
- Estate of Carr ex rel. Bolton v. Circle S Enters., Inc., 664 S.E.2d 83 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008) (defines bad faith as actual or constructive fraud or sinister motive)
- Fanning v. Fritz’s Pontiac- Cadillac-Buick, 472 S.E.2d 242 (S.C. 1996) (unconscionability involves oppressive terms and lack of meaningful choice)
- Pallares v. Seinar, 756 S.E.2d 128 (S.C. 2014) (malice involves deliberate act without just cause or excuse; used for punitive damages standard)
- Grissom v. Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008) (guidance on attorney’s fees and related award standards)