Court Opinion

ID: 9854165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:02:11.99124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:57.736827
License: Public Domain

Justice PLEICONES concurring:
I agree with the majority that the first issue is not preserved, and I concur in the decision holding that Aiken’s tort claims are without the parties’ arbitration agreement. I write separately, however, as I do not agree with the majority’s decision to the extent it finds that identity theft is not foreseeable. See Huggins v. Citibank, N.A., 355 S.C. 329, 585 S.E.2d 275 (2003) (“[The Court] is greatly concerned with the ramp*153ant growth of identity theft and financial fraud.... ”). I would hold that parties executing a lender-borrower contract containing an arbitration provision do not intend identity theft to be within the ambit of the contract, and further that there is no “significant relationship” between the loan agreement and the allegations of Aiken’s tort claims. Zabinski v. Bright Acres Assocs., 346 S.C. 580, 553 S.E.2d 110 (2001).
With this reservation, I concur.