736 S.E.2d 867
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- RMC sued Broyhill for malicious prosecution and related claims after investigating his conduct while he managed ENSCO projects.
- Broyhill, employed 1999–2002, signed a non-solicit/non-compete style clause requiring 25% fee payment if he breached.
- RMC closed Broyhill’s office in 2002; Broyhill alleged demotion and removed from profit sharing, and he resigned in December 2002.
- Post-resignation, Broyhill joined JMI Solutions; ENSCO awarded projects to both JMI and RMC, forming dispute over contract breach.
- RMC alleged Broyhill used company information and took documents; Broyhill claimed he acted with courtesy and based on information from Cummings.
- During discovery, RMC did not contact ENSCO/JMI or provide damages projections; trial court directed verdicts partially and submitted remaining issues to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict on malicious prosecution | Broyhill asserts lack of probable cause and malice supported by record. | RMC contends there was insufficient evidence for malicious prosecution. | Denied; jury question on lack of probable cause possible; reversed on jury instruction issue. |
| Probable cause instruction | Broyhill argues jury must find lack of probable cause for all claims and not any one. | RMC sought instruction that lack of probable cause for any one claim defeats malicious prosecution. | Reversed; erroneous charge requiring lack of probable cause for all claims; remand for new trial. |
| Directing verdict against O’Keefe, Kozek, Cummings on malicious prosecution | Broyhill contends individual officers acted in corporate capacity; may still be liable. | RMC argues individuals acted within official capacities and cannot be liable. | Affirmed; no evidence individuals instituted or continued proceedings. |
| Civil conspiracy against officers | Broyhill argues officers can be liable for conspiracy in their personal capacity. | RMC asserts conspiracy cannot be charged when acts are performed by officers in official capacity. | Affirmed; corporation cannot conspire with itself; officers not liable where acting in official capacity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruff v. Eckerds Drugs, Inc., 265 S.C. 563 (South Carolina 1975) (elements of malicious prosecution)
- Parrott v. Plowden Motor Co., 246 S.C. 318 (South Carolina 1965) (malice inferred from lack of probable cause)
- Jackson v. City of Abbeville, 366 S.C. 662 (Ct.App. 2005) (probable cause across multiple charges)
- Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369 (South Carolina 2000) (correct legal instruction required)
- Goodwin v. Kennedy, 347 S.C. 30 (Ct.App. 2001) (standard for directed verdict review)
- McMillan v. Oconee Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 367 S.C. 559 (South Carolina 2006) (corporate conspiracy considerations)