Court Opinion

ID: 9567957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:59:18.335762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:05.622879
License: Public Domain

Goolsby, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur fully in Parts I and V of the majority’s opinion. As to the remainder, I agree that Turner-Murphy is entitled under the facts of this case to recover attorney fees under the principle of equitable indemnity. Addy v. Bolton, 257 S.C. 28, 183 S.E. (2d) 708 (1971). I also agree that this case presents the “same fact pattern” as exists in Addy.
I disagree, however, that this case presents the “same fact pattern” as exists in JKT Co., Inc. v. Hardwick, 284 S.C. 10, *63325 S.E. (2d) 329 (Ct. App. 1984) and that Addy and JKT reach conflicting results. See Gray and Catt, The Law of Indemnity in South Carolina, 41 S.C.L.R. 603, 607-09 (1990).
I also disagree that JKT should be overruled, believing as I do that JKT was correctly decided. See Lightner v. Duke Power Co., 719 F. Supp. 1310, 1312-13 (D.S.C. 1989). Indeed, what the majority does by overruling JKT is to expand the Supreme Court’s holding in Addy and to sanction in all cases involving codefendants, irrespective of the relationship existing between them, the recovery of attorney fees and litigation costs on the basis of equitable indemnity by a defendant who successfully defended against his own acts from a codefendant who was found liable. See Tomlinson v. Sentry Engineering and Construction, Inc., 777 F. (2d) 918, 919 (4th Cir. 1985).