Case Name: Wesley E. DIXON, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Defendants
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1984-05-10
Citations: 281 S.C. 452
Docket Number: 22099
Parties: Wesley E. DIXON, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Defendants.
Judges: Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 281
Pages: 452–455

Head Matter:
22099
Wesley E. DIXON, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Defendants.
(316 S. E. (2d) 376)
Supreme Court
David M. Ratchford and Charles F. Cooper, II, of Ratchford & Cooper, Columbia, and Don S. Rushing, of Thomas, Rushing, Goldsmith & Folks, Lancaster, and Benjamin A. Johnson, of Roddey, Carpenter & White, P.A., Rock Hill, for plaintiff
R. Bruce Shaw, ThornwellF. Sowell, III, and Joel H. Smith, of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for defendants.
Darra Williamson Cothran and Paul J. Kamber, of Leventis, Ormand & Kamber, Columbia, for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company, amicus curiae.
Heard Jan. 7, 1984.
Decided May 10, 1984.

Opinion:
Lewis, Chief Justice:
The question certified in this case by the United States District Court seeks a decision as to the prospective application of the private enforcement provision of Section 38-37-940(2).
We held in G-H Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Company, 270 S. C. 147, 241 S. E. (2d) 534, that a private cause of action existed under Section 38-37-940(2) for the wrongful termination of an agency agreement. Subsequently, that holding was impinged upon only to the extent that its retroactive application was held to unconstitutionally violate the contract clause, (Garris v. Hanover Insurance Company, 630 F. (2d) 1001; G-H Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company, 278 S. C. 241, 294 S. E. (2d) 336), clearly leaving G-H Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., supra, as authority for the prospective application of the private enforcement provision of Section 38-37-940(2).
G-H Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Companies, supra, has not been modified by any decision of this Court and is the law of this jurisdiction. Therefore, the answer to the certified question is: Dixon does, under South Carolina Code Ann. Section 38-37-940(2) (1976), have a private cause of action for termination of his agency agreement executed December 15,1980 and effective January 1,1981.
Gregory and Harwell, JJ., concur.