Glenda R. Couram v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ( 2022 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Glenda R. Couram, Respondent,
v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Titan Indemnity
Company, Eugene Matthews, in his individual capacity,
Sherwood Tidwell, Sherwood Plumbing SVC, LLC,
Beatrice T. Tidwell, and Rick Skurko in his official and
individual capacity,
of whom Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Titan
Indemnity Mutual Insurance, and Eugene Matthews are,
Petitioners.
Appellate Case No. 2022-000251
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal from Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2022-MO-009
Submitted September 20, 2022 – Filed October 5, 2022
REVERSED
Pamela Jean Larson, of Womble Bond Dickinson, LLP, of
Columbia, for Petitioners Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company and Titan Indemnity Company.
Eugene Hamilton Matthews, of Columbia, pro se
Petitioner.
Glenda Couram, pro se Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The court of appeals reversed a Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, order
dismissing petitioners Nationwide Insurance Company, Titan Indemnity Company,
and attorney Eugene Matthews without mentioning the basis on which the order was
entered as to the petitioners. As we will explain, the court of appeals erred. We
grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense with briefing, reverse the court of
appeals, and reinstate the Rule 12(b)(6) order as to the petitioners.
Glenda Couram was injured in an automobile accident she alleged was caused by
Sherwood Tidwell. Couram brought a separate lawsuit against Tidwell in circuit
court for damages arising out of that accident. That case eventually went to trial
with Couram representing herself pro se. The trial court granted Tidwell a directed
verdict as to punitive damages, and on June 16, 2017, a jury awarded Couram $1,000
in actual damages. The court of appeals reversed the judgment entered on that
verdict on the ground the trial judge should not have directed a verdict as to punitive
damages, and remanded for a new trial. Couram v. Tidwell, 2021-UP-367 (S.C. Ct.
App. Oct. 27, 2021). We granted Tidwell's petition for a writ of certiorari in that
case, dispensed with briefing, and affirmed as modified, clarifying that the case was
remanded for a new trial only as to punitive damages. Couram v. Tidwell, S.C. Sup.
Ct. Order dated Sept. 19, 2022.
In this lawsuit, Couram—again representing herself pro se—brought negligence and
negligent entrustment claims against Tidwell, his employer, and his wife. Couram
also brought claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil
conspiracy against Nationwide, Titan, attorney Matthews, and others. In Couram's
Amended Complaint, she alleged that after a mediation in the other case in which
"Nationwide continued to disregard the laws of South Carolina by refusing to go any
higher than 20K despite proof of medical bills and other evidence," "Defendant
Eugene Matthews entered the picture and [sic] a second subpoenaed request for
plaintiff's employment records causing the plaintiff additional suffering." Other than
this, there is no specific mention in the Amended Complaint of anything the
insurance companies or attorney Matthews did or did not do that could give rise to
liability. The rest of the Amended Complaint contains only conclusory allegations
such as "The malicious and/or oppressive conduct of the Defendants Matthews and
for Nationwide," and "The Attorney for Nation [sic] and Matthews met several times
in full view in fact ensured she saw them outside the courthouse, inside the court
housing [sic] – even when neither were required to be present on the day of the
meetings . . . ," and "The Defendants played with the plaintiff like she was a mouse
in a trap to such an extent that the injury manifested itself in a fever blister that
remained four days after the trial."
All defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP. In an order filed
April 20, 2018, the circuit court granted the motion and dismissed this lawsuit as to
all defendants. As to Tidwell, his employer, and his wife, the circuit court relied on
the judgment entered on the June 16, 2017 jury verdict in the other case and ruled
Couram's claims in this case were barred by claim and issue preclusion. As to
Nationwide, Titan, and attorney Eugene Matthews, the circuit court relied on other
grounds:
• On the question of whether Couram alleged outrageous conduct, the circuit
court found, "Plaintiff's allegations demonstrate that Defendants used lawful
means to defend their insured . . . and offered the Plaintiff less than she desired
to settle her prior lawsuit." From this the circuit court concluded, "As a matter
of law, Plaintiff's factual allegations against Nationwide and Titan fall short
of the outrageous conduct required for an emotional distress claim." See Bass
v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 414 S.C. 558, 575, 780 S.E.2d 252, 260-61 (2015)
(requiring a plaintiff claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress to
establish "the conduct was so 'extreme and outrageous' so as to exceed 'all
possible bounds of decency' and must be regarded as 'atrocious, and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community'" (quoting Argoe v. Three Rivers
Behavioral Health, L.L.C., 392 S.C. 462, 475, 710 S.E.2d 67, 74 (2011))).
This portion of the order does not specifically mention attorney Matthews,
but, as mentioned above, there are no allegations against attorney Matthews
that differ from those against Nationwide and Titan.
• On the question of whether Couram alleged emotional distress so "severe"
that "no reasonable man could be expected to endure it," the circuit court
found Couram's allegations were insufficient and concluded, "Therefore, as a
matter of law, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficiently severe emotional
distress to support her claim." See Bass, 414 S.C. at 575, 780 S.E.2d at 261(requiring a plaintiff claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress to
establish "the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was 'severe' such that
'no reasonable man could be expected to endure it'" (quoting Argoe, 392 S.C.
at 475, 710 S.E.2d at 74)).
• On the question of whether Couram alleged a civil conspiracy, the circuit
court found, "Nowhere in the civil conspiracy section of her Complaint does
Plaintiff set forth what these alleged 'wrongful acts' or 'unlawful acts'
committed by Defendants are." From this the circuit court concluded,
"Therefore, the alleged 'wrongful acts complained of . . . must mean those acts
previously alleged in the 'Facts Common to all Causes of Action' section of
Plaintiff's Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim fails as a matter
of law . . . ." See AJG Holdings LLC v. Dunn, 392 S.C. 160, 167-68, 708
S.E.2d 218, 222-23 (Ct. App. 2011) (requiring a plaintiff "show that
the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were separate and independent from
other wrongful acts alleged in the complaint"), aff'd, 410 S.C. 346, 764 S.E.2d
912 (2014).
• On the question of whether Couram alleged the civil conspiracy defendants
acted for the purpose of injuring her, the circuit court found Couram failed to
make sufficient allegations because "the insurer['s] . . . primary purpose was
to properly defend its insured, not to injure the Plaintiff." See AJG Holdings
LLC, 392 S.C. at 167, 708 S.E.2d at 222 (stating civil conspiracy plaintiffs are
"required to demonstrate that two or more persons combined for the purpose
of injuring . . . them"). The circuit court did not specifically mention attorney
Matthews on this point, but again, there are no allegations against attorney
Matthews that differ from those against Nationwide and Titan.
For the reasons stated in the bullet-pointed paragraphs, the circuit court granted the
Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to Nationwide, Titan, and attorney Matthews.
The court of appeals reversed the 12(b)(6) order as to all defendants, relying only on
its decision to reverse the punitive damages ruling in the other case. Couram v.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2021-UP-373 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2021). The court of
appeals stated, "In light of our recent opinion in Couram v. Tidwell, 2021-UP-367
(S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2021), Couram's present action is not barred by the doctrine
of res judicata or collateral estoppel because a final judgment on the merits does not
exist." Id. No other analysis was given, and in particular, the court of appeals gave
no explanation as to how its reversal of the judgment in the other case could possibly
affect the Rule 12(b)(6) order in this case dismissing Nationwide, Titan, or attorney
Matthews. Thus, the court of appeals' only stated reason for reversing in this case
has nothing whatsoever to do with the portion of the Rule 12(b)(6) order addressing
Nationwide, Titan, and attorney Matthews.
In our view, the circuit court was correct to dismiss Nationwide, Titan, and attorney
Matthews. There is nothing in Couram's allegations that make this an intentional
infliction of emotional distress or civil conspiracy case against anybody, particularly
these petitioners. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeals and reinstate the Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal order as to petitioners Nationwide, Titan, and attorney Matthews.
REVERSED.
BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.