Court Opinion

ID: 9561022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:01:23.002049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:29.379155
License: Public Domain

*275Gregory, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s decision to overrule valid precedent of this Court regarding application of the discovery rule to an action for breach of contract.
In Livingston v. Sims, 197 S. C. 458, 15 S. E. (2d) 770 (1941), this Court specifically held that in an action for breach of contract, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time the cause of action accrues. This occurs when the defendant breaches its duty to the plaintiff. In so holding, the Court stated:
The fact that substantial damages were not discovered or did not occur until later is of no consequence. The act itself, which is the ground of action, cannot be legally separated from its consequences. Were this so, successive actions might be brought in many cases of contract and tort as the damages developed, although all the consequential injuries had one common root in the single original breach or wrong. 197 S. C. at 464,15 S. E. (2d) at 773.
The legislature has since enacted S. C. Code Ann. §§ 15-3-530(5) and 15-3-535 (Supp. 1988) which apply the discovery rule to actions for injuries not arising on contract. Since the legislature has so recently rejected the discovery rule as to actions for breach of contract, I would yield to its judgment in this matter. Cases cited from the federal district court are not controlling or even persuasive here.
Applying Livingston v. Sims to the facts at hand, I would hold the statute of limitations ran six years from Daniel’s completion of its performance of the contract in 1966 and affirm the circuit court’s ruling that Santee’s action was barred.