Opinion ID: 1156080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Respondents have conceded that the Court of Appeals went too far in relying upon Prosser's role as a principal in both Sea Island and HCW to hold that the warehouse and the brokerage are essentially the same entity. Moreover, they now agree that they cannot rely on that part of S.C.Code Ann. § 39-22-200 (Supp.2007), which requires an affidavit under certain circumstances not present here. At oral argument, respondents admitted that they are not relying on any misconduct on the part of HCW, but rather on the fact the cotton they farmed [2] was located in HCW when the warehouse declared bankruptcy. In so doing, they rely on S.C.Code Ann. § 39-22-15, which provides: For purposes of this chapter, loss means any monetary loss over and beyond the amount protected by a warehouseman's bond sustained as a result of storing a commodity in a state-licensed warehouse including, but not limited to, any monetary loss over and beyond the amount protected by a warehouseman's bond sustained as a result of the warehouseman's bankruptcy, embezzlement, or fraud. Here, respondents did not suffer any monetary loss ... as a result of storing a commodity in [HCW], nor did they sustain any monetary loss as a result of [HCW's] bankruptcy.... Respondents' loss was the result of Sea Island's wrongful disposition of the cotton they had produced, and its inability to pay them additional sums as a result of its bankruptcy. Respondents did not suffer a warehouse loss within the meaning of § 39-22-15, and therefore were not entitled to receive money from the Fund under § 39-22-150 (Supp.2007).