Thornton v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Corp. (SCE & G)
391 S.C. 297
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Thorntons brought a class action alleging negligence, strict liability, and nuisance from SCE&G blasting at Lake Murray dam.
- SCE&G moved to strike class action allegations, and for summary judgment on statute of limitations and on Mining Act private right of action.
- The circuit court granted the motion to strike class allegations, and granted summary judgment on no private Mining Act action; summary judgment on statute of limitations remained pending.
- Thorntons appeal the order granting the strike and the Mining Act ruling; SCE&G cross-appeals denial of summary judgment on statute of limitations.
- The appellate court held the interlocutory order was not immediately appealable and dismissed the appeal.
- Thorntons may still pursue their negligence claim, including evidence of Mining Act violations, if permissible at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order to strike class action allegations appealable? | Thorntons: order affects a substantial right by striking a pleading. | SCE&G: it is an interlocutory ruling on class certification merits, not an appealable strike. | Not immediately appealable |
| Is the Mining Act private action ruling appealable as to no private remedy? | Thorntons: ruling on Mining Act creates a substantive effect on their claims. | SCE&G: no private Mining Act claim was asserted; order does not involve merits. | Not immediately appealable |
| Is the denial/denial-with-remand of summary judgment on statute of limitations appealable? | Thorntons: denial impacts final outcome and is appealable as interlocutory denial. | SCE&G: the order does not grant summary judgment and is not appealable. | Not appealable; trial on statute of limitations to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grazia v. South Carolina State Plastering, LLC, 390 S.C. 562 (2010) (notice-and-cure act; class action viability; appealability discussed)
- Miles v. Charleston Light & Water Co., 87 S.C. 254 (1910) (appealability depends on effect of order)
- Bowden v. Powell, 194 S.C. 482 (1940) (distinction between striking pleadings and denying merits)
- Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 346 S.C. 37 (Ct. App. 2001) (order to strike not final; appellate treatment varies)
- Breland v. Love Chevrolet Olds, Inc., 339 S.C. 89 (2000) (immediate appeals require vindication of substantial right on appeal)
- Salmonsen v. CGD, Inc., 377 S.C. 442 (2008) (class certification may be altered before decision on merits)
- Olson v. Faculty House of Carolina, Inc., 354 S.C. 161 (2003) (denial of summary judgment generally not appealable)
- Mid-State Distribs., Inc. v. Century Imps., Inc., 310 S.C. 330 (1993) (merits-based determination in summary judgment context)
- Link v. School Dist. of Pickens County, 302 S.C. 1 (1990) (principles for appealability of interlocutory orders)
- P.J. Construction Co., Inc. v. Roller, 287 S.C. 632 (Ct. App. 1986) (distinguishes immediacy of appeal following strike-type orders)