Able v. Terminix Service ( 2007 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS 
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

---

Virginia Able, Appellant,

v.

Terminix Service, Inc. and Dow/Elanco, Inc. a Division of Dow Chemical, Inc., Respondents.

---

Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2007-MO-014
Heard February 14, 2007 – Filed March 12, 2007

---

AFFIRMED

---

John S. Nichols, of Bluestein & Nichols, LLC, of Columbia; Ronald J. Jebaily, of Jebaily Law Firm, P.A., of Florence; and Helen Tyler McFadden, of Kingstree, for Appellant.

Clinch H. Belser, Jr., Michael J. Polk, both of Belser & Belser, P.A., of Columbia; Carl B. Epps, III, Christopher J. Daniels, William C. Wood, Jr., all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia; and Dean T. Barnhard, of Barnes & Thornburg, of Indianapolis, for Respondents.

---

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Dean v. Ruscon Corp., 321 S.C. 360, 468 S.E.2d 645 (1996) (holding action barred by statute of limitations when the injured party failed to exercise reasonable diligence and act with some promptness where the facts and circumstances of an injury would have placed a reasonable person of common knowledge and experience on notice that a claim against another party might exist, and finding it immaterial that the injured party did not comprehend the full extent of the damage). 

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.