Opinion ID: 1272869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: apportionment of verdict

Text: Finally, Giannini asserts the trial court erred in apportioning the verdict equally among the Plaintiffs, rather than apportioning it in accordance with the verdicts awarded to each plaintiff. As noted, S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-120(a)(1) limits an individual's recovery against a government agency to $300,000 for a loss arising from a single occurrence. Section 15-78-120(a)(2) further limits the total sum recoverable from a single occurrence to $600,000 regardless of the number of agencies or political subdivisions or claims or actions involved. The trial court determined that, since each of the verdicts exceeded $300,000, each plaintiff's verdict would each be reduced to $200,000. We find no error in the trial court's apportionment. If the Legislature had intended for the $600,000 aggregate cap to be divided in proportion to the verdicts awarded to each plaintiff, it could have said so. State v. Curtis, 356 S.C. 622, 591 S.E.2d 600 (2004) (if Legislature had intended certain result in a statute it would have said so). Accordingly, the trial court's ruling is affirmed. AFFIRMED. MOORE, J., concurs. BEATTY, J., concurring in a separate opinion. PLEICONES, J. dissenting in a separate opinion in which TOAL, C.J., concurs.