Motion,Ex Parte: Shirley Smith VS Pinpoint Home And Commercial Inspection , defendant, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jun 06 2:24 PM - KERSHAW - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2800019
 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA                          ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                  )
 COUNTY OF KERSHAW                                ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2023-CP-28-00019
                                                  )
 SHIRLEY M. SMITH,                                )
                                                  )
                        Plaintiff,                )        PINPOINT HOME AND
                                                  ) COMMERCIAL INSPECTIONS, LLC’S
              vs.                                 )    MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR
                                                  )   PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 PINPOINT HOME AND                                )
 COMMERCIAL INSPECTIONS, LLC                      )      (HEARING REQUESTED)
 AND DENNIS MURPHY,                               )
                                                  )
                        Defendants.               )
                                                  )

       PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Pinpoint Home and Commercial Inspections,

LLC (hereinafter “Pinpoint”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves for an Order to

dismiss Plaintiff’s negligence claim pursuant to SCRCP 12(b)(6) and to grant partial summary

judgment pursuant to SCRCP Rule 56.

       Pinpoint moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s negligence claims as they are barred by the
economic loss doctrine. Pinpoint’s motion to dismiss is based on the following:
          Plaintiff’s action in tort against Pinpoint for purely economic losses is expressly barred
           by the economic loss doctrine. Pinpoint’s relationship with Plaintiff originated, and
           exists, entirely as a result of the Contract. Accordingly, any and all duties Pinpoint
           owed Plaintiff similarly arose from the Contract. The South Carolina Supreme Court
           has long held if a defendant’s duty to a plaintiff arises from a contractual relationship,
           then an action in tort is untenable. Tommy L. Griffin Plumbing & Heating Co. v.
           Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49, 463 S.E.2d 85 (1995). Accordingly,
           Plaintiff’s negligence action should be dismissed.
       Pinpoint’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is based on the following:
          Pinpoint’s liability, if any, is contractually limited by the October 12, 2021 Real Estate
           Inspection Contract (the “Agreement”) pursuant to which Pinpoint performed services
           for Plaintiff. (Exhibit A). The Contract contains a limitation of liability provision:
                                                                                                          ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Jun 06 2:24 PM - KERSHAW - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2800019
                “LIMIT OF LIABILITY: It is understood and agreed that should PINPOINT
               and/or its agents or employees be found liable for any loss or damages resulting
               from a failure to perform any of its obligations, including but not limited to
               negligence, breach of contract or otherwise, then the liability of PINPOINT and/or
               it's agents or employees shall be limited to a sum equal to the amount of the fee
               paid by the client for this inspection and report. ”

           Ex. A at 2. In this case, the fee paid was $300.00. The South Carolina Supreme Court
           has upheld this verbatim limit of liability. Gladden v. Boykin, 402 S.C. 140, 739 S.E.2d
           882 (2013). Accordingly, Pinpoint’s liability, if any, should be limited to the $300.00
           inspection fee paid by Plaintiff.
       This motion is supported by the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable case
law, and any other materials the court may receive at or prior to the time of a hearing on this matter.

                                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                                       HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C.

                                                       /s/ Thomas Barrow ____________
                                                       Joseph “Trey” Thompson, III, Esq.
                                                       jthompson@hallboothsmith.com
                                                       Thomas Barrow, Esq.
                                                       tbarrow@hallboothsmith.com
                                                       111 Coleman Blvd., Suite 301
                                                       Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
                                                       Telephone: (843) 720-3460


                                                       Counsel for Pinpoint Home and Commercial
                                                       Inspections, LLC


This 6th day of June, 2023.




                                                  Page 2 of 2