778 S.E.2d 888
S.C.2015Background
- Proctor gambled on video poker at Rockaways and Pizza Man from 1999–2005 and alleged large weekly losses; she financed gambling partly by stealing from her employer’s trust account, causing Trans-Union to pay insurance claims.
- South Carolina banned video poker effective July 1, 2000 (Act No. 125); statutes governing gambling-loss recovery (§§32-1-10, 32-1-20, and §32-1-60) were amended as part of that Act.
- Proctor (and Trans-Union) sued the machine operators and owners asserting unjust enrichment, negligence, civil conspiracy, and UTPA claims; defendants invoked in pari delicto, unclean hands, and standing defenses.
- The circuit court granted Proctor partial summary judgment on UTPA liability, finding the in pari delicto doctrine abrogated for gambling losses; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court held the statutory gambling-loss remedies are the exclusive remedy for illegal gambling losses and overruled prior appellate authority to the extent it allowed UTPA recovery for illegal gambling; but it allowed Proctor to pursue UTPA claims only for losses before July 1, 2000 (when video poker was lawful).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the doctrine of in pari delicto bars recovery for gambling losses | Proctor: legislative and case law permit recovery; UTPA is cumulative so she may recover under UTPA | Petitioners: statutes limit recovery and are exclusive; in pari delicto should bar recovery for illegal conduct | Gambling-loss statutes are the exclusive remedy for illegal gambling losses; in pari delicto not abrogated beyond those statutes; but UTPA claim permitted for losses before July 1, 2000 |
| Whether §§32-1-10/32-1-20 preclude UTPA remedies | Proctor: §39-5-160 makes UTPA remedies cumulative and supplementary | Petitioners: the 2000 amendments (esp. §32-1-60) show legislature intended statutory scheme to govern illegal gambling losses exclusively | Court: §32-1-60 limits §§32-1-10/20 to unauthorized gambling and, read with legislative intent, makes the gambling-loss statutes the exclusive remedy for illegal gambling losses |
| Scope of damages recoverable for gambling losses | Proctor: UTPA allows full damages, treble, and fees; equitable relief should be available | Petitioners: statutory scheme limits recovery to net losses (and narrower remedies/statutes of limitations) | Court: allowing UTPA would permit windfalls (treble, fees) contrary to legislative design; recovery under gambling statutes is limited and exclusive for illegal gambling |
| Effect of prior precedent (Johnson, Gentry, Berkebile) | Proctor: these cases support allowing UTPA/RICO/other claims alongside gambling statutes | Petitioners: those cases are distinguishable or wrongly extend recovery beyond the statutes | Court: affirms Berkebile to extent consistent with statutes, but overrules Gentry and Johnson insofar as they authorized UTPA recovery for illegal gambling losses beyond the statutory remedies; retains UTPA only for pre‑ban (legal) gambling period |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkebile v. Outen, 311 S.C. 50, 426 S.E.2d 760 (1993) (interpreting the historic gambling-loss statute and its protective purpose for gamblers)
- Gentry v. Yonce, 337 S.C. 1, 522 S.E.2d 137 (1999) (permitting pleading of UTPA and RICO claims by gamblers while video poker was regulated)
- Johnson v. Collins Entm't Co., 349 S.C. 613, 564 S.E.2d 653 (2002) (held gambling-loss statutes did not preclude other remedies; court now limited that holding)
- McCurry v. Keith, 325 S.C. 441, 481 S.E.2d 166 (Ct.App.1997) (establishing that gambler recovery is limited to net losses)