Published Cases

The attorneys of Bruner Powell are aggressive litigators who have been involved in numerous published cases in South Carolina, several of which are detailed below. 

Disclaimer: The following examples are intended only to be representative of the practice. These examples are not intended to, and cannot be relied upon to predict the results in any other case. 

In Middleborough Horizontal Property Regime Council of Co-Owners v. Montedison S.P.A., Warren C. Powell, Jr. and another attorney obtained partial summary judgment as to liability for a group of condo owners against the manufacturer of a faulty roofing water-proofing material. Powell used a prior decision against Montedison in the Minnesota Supreme Court to preclude the manufacturer from contesting liability in South Carolina for the faulty product. Middleborough Horizontal Property Regime Council of Co-Owners v. Montedison S.P.A., 320 S.C. 470, 465 S.E.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1995).

In Douglass ex rel. Louthian v. Boyce, Warren C. Powell, Jr. obtained a judgment on the pleadings against the plaintiff in this legal malpractice action. In this complex case involving an allegedly illegitimate child, the divorce of the parents listed on the child's birth certificate, and a wrongful death action by the estate of the child's alleged illegitimate father, Powell obtained the dismissal of a legal malpractice suit against one of the lawyers in the divorce proceedings. Powell successfully argued that there is no duty on the lawyers of a divorce proceeding to determine paternity of the children of the parties where the parties do not make such a request and the child's paternity is already acknowledged. Douglass ex rel. Louthian v. Boyce, 336 S.C. 318, 519 S.E.2d 802 (Ct. App. 1999).

In U.S. ex rel. Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., James L. Bruner and Brian P. Robinson successfully defended Metric Constructors, the general contractor, in a dispute with a subcontractor concerning damages arising from delays in the construction of a new federal prison in Estill, South Carolina. The case centered on a "no-damages-for-delay" clause in the contract between Metric and its subcontractors. Bruner and Robinson convinced the Supreme Court of South Carolina that adopting a very open-ended exception to these clauses when the contract language was unambiguous was not consistent with prior South Carolina decisions and law. U.S. ex rel. Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 325 S.C. 129, 480 S.E.2d 447 (1997).

In National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Brown & Martin Co., Inc., Henry P. Wall obtained summary judgment for Brown & Martin in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The case involved a mistake in bid on a construction contract for the City of Columbia, and it was a case of first impression in South Carolina. The City of Columbia refused to allow Brown & Martin to withdraw its bid even though the mistake was of a mathematical clerical nature. Wall persuaded the District Court, and subsequently the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, that such relief is legally appropriate for contractors who make innocent bid errors. This case established the law of unilateral mistakes in bids in South Carolina and was closely followed by several trade organizations such as the Associated General Contractors of America who submitted an extensive amicus brief. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Brown & Martin Co., Inc., 726 F.Supp. 1036 (D.S.C. 1989), aff'd 907 F.2d 1139 (4th Cir. 1990).

In Martin Engineering, Inc. v. Lexington County School Dist. One, Henry P. Wall obtained further relief for a client and an extension of the holding in Brown and Martin before the South Carolina Supreme Court. In this case, the general contractor and low bidder was allowed to correct its bid while remaining the low bidder on the project due to an inadvertent error and bid mistake. This case was likewise heavily briefed by several industry groups including the American Institute of Architects and a national school association. Taken together, these two cases establish the law of bid mistakes in South Carolina and provide welcome relief for general contractors who unintentionally commit costly math errors in the pressure-packed environment of competitive bidding. Martin Engineering, Inc. v. Lexington County School Dist. One, 365 S.C. 1, 615 S.E.2d 110 (2005).

In Roland v. Heritage Litchfield, Inc., William D. Britt, Jr., along with John Davidson of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, and Saul Gliserman of Query Sautter Gliserman & Price, LLC, obtained summary judgment as to liability against a developer, its parent company, and the builder of condominium units after toxic mold was discovered in the units shortly after completion of construction. The complaint was brought on behalf of the condominium unit owners rather than the homeowners association and affirmatively established in South Carolina that a condominium unit owner, who owns an undivided share of the common elements of the complex, has standing to bring claims for damage to the common elements. The case also established that the habitability of the units did not turn on whether a person actually lived in them, but rather whether the inhabitants could live free of serious defects that could harm their health and safety. Roland v. Heritage Litchfield, Inc., 372 S.C. 161, 641 S.E.2d 465 (Ct. App. 2007).