762 S.E.2d 54
S.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Allegro sued Scully, Yarborough, Corbin, and Synergetic for multiple claims arising from Scully's attempt to buy Allegro and start a competing PEO.
- Allegro obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting Scully and others from soliciting Allegro’s clients, which the trial court granted after a hearing.
- Jury trial on eleven claims resulted in damages awards of $160,000 per claim and specified punitive awards; Form 4 purportedly consolidated/adjusted totals.
- Appellants challenged evidentiary rulings (injunction order, expert report), jury verdict formation, and failure to require election of remedies; these were appealed.
- Trial court later reformed the jury verdict to a global total, and Appellants argued this required a new trial, which was denied.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded on several evidentiary issues, ultimately vacating the verdict reform and related post-trial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of the preliminary injunction order | Appellants contend it was inherently prejudicial and improperly admitted. | Allegro urged the order's admissibility as part of trial record. | Reversed due to inherent prejudice; injunction order improperly admitted. |
| Admission of McHenry’s expert report | Report was cumulative, contained impermissible hearsay, and prejudiced Allegro. | Expert could rely on hearsay under Rule 703; report admissible as basis for opinion. | Reversed to extent the report included the injunction order; hearsay and prejudice warrant reversal. |
| McHenry’s qualification as an expert | Challenge to his qualification on damages. | McHenry properly qualified as an expert in damages. | Not addressed on this appeal due to other dispositive issues; remanded for evidentiary reasons. |
| Exclusion of damages evidence | Evidence bearing on Allegro's damages was improperly excluded. | Court appropriately balanced evidentiary concerns apart from the reversed issues. | Not reached; reversed on other grounds necessitates remand without addressing this issue. |
| Fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims | There was evidence of misrepresentation by Scully. | No true misrepresentation; merely a threat to leave Allegro with no false statement. | Affirmed reversal; trial court erred in denying directed verdict/JNOV for these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 710 S.E.2d 55 (S.C. 2011) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings requires prejudice shown)
- Dunn v. Charleston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 311 S.C. 43, 426 S.E.2d 756 (S.C. 1993) (inherently prejudicial evidence preserves error)
- Scratch Golf Co. v. Dunes W. Residential Golf Props., Inc., 361 S.C. 117, 603 S.E.2d 905 (S.C. 2004) (summary judgment standards and evidentiary use in injunctive context)
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Porter, 252 S.C. 478, 167 S.E.2d 313 (S.C. 1969) (temporary injunction merits limited at hearing; not final adjudication)
- Clark v. S.C. Dep’t of Public Safety, 362 S.C. 377, 608 S.E.2d 573 (S.C. 2005) (credibility not for appellate review in directed verdict context)