Harris Teeter, Inc. v. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC
701 S.E.2d 742
S.C.2010Background
- Harris Teeter contracted Moore & Van Allen, PLLC and W. Howell Morrison to represent it in an arbitration over a lease termination dispute with East Bay Venture, LLC (EBV).
- Lease first granted in 1979, under-market terms; EBV purchased the property in 2001 and demanded reimbursement for certain insurance and environmental costs.
- Harris Teeter paid disputed costs under protest during negotiations but did not cure defaults; EBV terminated the lease in January 2003.
- Arbitration proceeded with Morrison representing Harris Teeter; the arbitrator found Harris Teeter breached the lease and the breach was material, terminating the lease.
- Harris Teeter sued Respondents for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and fiduciary duties; circuit court granted summary judgment for Respondents on all claims.
- This appeal concerns whether Respondents committed malpractice by (i) failing to present evidence on two Kiriakides factors, (ii) failing to advise of termination risk, and (iii) failing to settle pre-arbitration; and whether proximate cause or judgmental immunity considerations alter the result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kiriakides factors not presented | HT contends responders failed to introduce evidence on two Kiriakides factors. | Respondents focused on materiality and presented Kiriakides-related argument in memorandum. | No genuine issue; summary judgment proper. |
| Advice of termination risk | HT alleges Respondents failed to warn of lease-termination risk. | Record shows candid warnings about risks and consequences of termination. | No malpractice; warning given. |
| Settlement before arbitration | HT asserts Respondents failed to settle pre-arbitration. | HT showed interest in settlement; negotiations ongoing; offer deemed ridiculous. | No malpractice; pre-arbitration settlement not required. |
| Proximate cause and expert testimony | Levick and Scarminach provide causation evidence of malpractice. | Experts failed to establish standard, causation; post-deposition affidavits considered sham. | No triable issue; lack of proximate cause. |
| Judgmental immunity | HT implies immunity for strategic decisions. | Court should not adopt judgmental immunity; decisions were reasonable. | Court declines to adopt; but summary judgment affirmed on the other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiriakides v. United Artists Communications, Inc., 312 S.C. 271, 440 S.E.2d 364 (1994) (lease forfeiture requires material breach; five-factor materiality test)
- Holy Loch Distribs., Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340 S.C. 20, 531 S.E.2d 282 (2000) (standard of care for attorneys in South Carolina)
- Baughman v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 306 S.C. 101, 410 S.E.2d 537 (1991) (proximate cause requires 'most probably' causal link in malpractice)
- Summer v. Carpenter, 328 S.C. 36, 492 S.E.2d 55 (1997) (preponderance standard; expert must show more than speculation)
- Ardis v. Sessions, 383 S.C. 528, 682 S.E.2d 249 (2009) (professional-standard conduct; general rule of care)
- Woodruff v. Tomlin, 616 F.2d 924 (1980) (judgmental immunity concept discussed in context of legal malpractice)