Thomas v. Gulf Stream Coach

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 Court of Appeals
Ralph Thomas and Nancy Thomas, Respondents,
v.
Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. and Ridgeland Recreational
Vehicles, Inc., d/b/a Boat N RV Megastore, Defendants,
of whom Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. is the Appellant,
and
Ridgeland Recreational Vehicles, Inc., d/b/a Boat N RV
Megastore, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2012-213361
Appeal From Jasper County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-320
Submitted July 1, 2014 – Filed August 13, 2014
AFFIRMED
Patrick M. Higgins and Jason Franklin Ward, both of
Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA, of Beaufort, for
Appellant.
John Paul Detrick and Matthew Vernon Creech, both of
Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of
Hampton, and John Lawrence Duffy, III, of The Duffy
Law Firm, LLC, of North Charleston, for Respondents
Ralph Thomas and Nancy Thomas; Matthew Todd
Carroll, of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, of
Columbia, for Respondent Ridgeland Recreational
Vehicles, Inc.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, 403 S.C. 53, 56, 742 S.E.2d 359, 360
(2013) ("Generally, an arbitration award is conclusive and courts will refuse to
review the merits of an award." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. (noting
"[a]n award will be vacated only under narrow, limited circumstances," such as
when the arbitrator "manifestly disregards or perversely misconstrues the law"); id.(explaining an arbitrator manifestly disregards the law and creates a basis for
vacating his award "when the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle yet
refused to apply it"); Gissel v. Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 241, 676 S.E.2d 320, 323 (2009)
("Case law presupposes something beyond a mere error in construing or applying
the law.").
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.