Turner Padget Insights

South Carolina Supreme Court's Interpretation of SCRCP Rule Positively Influences the Defense Bar

Posted On June 20, 2024

It's been almost a year since the South Carolina Supreme Court clarified what “genuine issue of material fact” means when evaluating evidence under Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (SCRCP). For over 15 years before the August 2023 ruling, lawyers thought that to avoid a summary judgment, a party only needed to show a “mere sentilla,” or minimal amount of evidence, based on the Hancock v. Mid-S. Management Company case. However, the Supreme Court admitted that Hancock might have caused confusion about the required standard when the burden of proof is “a preponderance of the evidence.” The Court clarified that if Hancock conflicts with its decision in Kitchen Planners, Hancock is overruled. The judges emphasized that it’s not enough to create a weak or fake issue of fact.

Rule 56(c) of the SCRCP is similar to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The federal case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. states that just a small amount of evidence is not enough; there must be enough evidence for a jury to reasonably decide in favor of the plaintiff.

Many legal experts think this clear standard means the South Carolina Supreme Court will grant more summary judgment motions. Others believe it will be harder for a party to oppose these motions because of the stricter standard.

But what is clear is that this will lead to a more careful evaluation of evidence in summary judgment cases. The Kitchen Planners decision is particularly helpful for defense lawyers, as it raises the burden from showing just a small amount of evidence to proving a “material fact.”

In turn, a speedier litigation process and a reduced cost of defense can be expected as the new standard tasks: Trial judges may no longer consider one piece of evidence and give it great significance.

Since Kitchen Planners, several cases have affirmed summary judgment, including Shimeld v. Richland Cnty. Sherriff’s Office, Simmons v. Simmons, Peterkin v. Bummz Beach, LLC., Wall v. Dye, Wienands v. S. Wind Ranch, Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Stonington Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Taylor, HaLevi v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist., Marlowe v. S.C. Dep’t of Transportation, and Stokes v. Oconee Cnty.

Alexandria S. Jones is an associate in Turner Padget’s Charleston office, where she principally practices insurance litigation.