UP-320 - Thomas v. Gulf Stream Coach

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Appellate Case No. 2012-213361 Appeal From Jasper County Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-320 Submitted July 1, 2014 Filed August 13, 2014 AFFIRMED Patrick M. Higgins and Jason Franklin Ward, both of Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA,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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.