914 S.E.2d 842
S.C.2025Background
- Marvin Gipson hired Coffey & McKenzie, P.A. (Coffey) to close a real estate sale and expected $10,036 in proceeds.
- Coffey, following fraudulent email instructions intercepted by a hacker, wired the proceeds to a hacker's bank account.
- Coffey recovered $1,516.89 from the hacker’s account and returned it to Gipson.
- Gipson sued Coffey for negligence, seeking the full $10,036 in damages.
- The jury awarded Gipson $10,036; trial court and court of appeals denied Coffey's request to reduce the award by the recovered funds.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari and addressed whether Gipson could recover the full amount despite the funds returned by Coffey.
Issues
| Issue | Gipson’s Argument | Coffey’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gipson is entitled to recover the full amount of the lost proceeds, including funds already returned | Gipson wanted to be made whole and claimed full damages, arguing recovered funds were from a collateral source | Coffey argued the verdict should be reduced by returned funds to avoid double recovery | Held: Verdict should be reduced; funds returned by Coffey are not collateral source |
| Does the collateral source rule apply to the $1,516.89 returned by Coffey? | Claimed the recovered amount was from a collateral source, so should not reduce damages | Asserted returned amount was not from a collateral source but by wrongdoer (Coffey) directly | Held: Collateral source rule does not apply; payment was not from an independent source |
| Should the jury verdict be reduced to prevent double recovery? | No reduction, as jury knew of repayment and awarded full amount | Verdict must be reduced to actual loss, otherwise plaintiff gets double recovery | Held: Reduction required to prevent double recovery under common law |
| (Expert testimony issue—dismissed) | N/A | N/A | Writ dismissed as improvidently granted on this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 414 S.C. 185 (law prohibits double recovery for the same injury)
- Rush v. Blanchard, 310 S.C. 375 (jury damages awards are entitled to deference if within the range of evidence)
- Atkinson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 361 S.C. 156 (collateral source rule explained as barring wrongdoers from benefiting from independent compensation received by the injured party)
- Bridges v. Asheville & S.R. Co., 27 S.C. 456 (collateral source rule's origins in South Carolina)