S.C. Court of Appeals Construes Protest Exemption Provision of South Carolina Dealers Act

In Southeast Toyota Distributors v. Jim Hudson Superstore, a panel of the South Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the relocation of the Toyota Center dealership in Lexington County was exempt from protest pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-46(C) (2006). This issue was a question of first impression in South Carolina, as no appellate court had previously construed this particular statute.

On May 30, 2006, Anderson Columbia Acquisition, LLC, d/b/a/ Toyota Center (Anderson) entered into an agreement with Rish-Corey Automotive, Inc. to purchase the assets of the Toyota Center dealership. Toyota Center has been located at 1640 Airport Boulevard in West Columbia since 1972. Anderson also entered into a dealer agreement with Appellant Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET), the authorized distributor of Toyota vehicles, parts, and accessories for South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. Because of the inadequacy of the existing facility at 1640 Airport Boulevard, Anderson's dealer agreement with SET required Anderson to construct and occupy a new facility at a site to be approved by SET. SET later approved Anderson's choice of the site at 2136 Sunset Boulevard in West Columbia, less than three miles away from the facility at 1640 Airport Boulevard, and sent letters to Respondent Jim Hudson Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Jim Hudson Toyota/Scion (Hudson), and Dyer, Inc., d/b/a Dick Dyer Toyota (Dyer) informing them of the proposed relocation of the Toyota Center dealership.

SET sought a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court for Lexington County seeking a determination whether the relocation of the Toyota Center dealership in Lexington County was exempt from protest. Hudson and Dyer filed counterclaims asserting protests to the proposed relocation under subsection (B) of the statute. SET and Hudson then filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the exemption issue. The circuit court granted Hudson's summary judgment motion and denied SET's summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeals, reversed, ruling that the circuit court erred in concluding that the relocation of the Toyota Center dealership is not exempt from protest pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-46(C)(3) (2006). The Court of Appeals agreed with Anderson and SET that a change in ownership does not alter the status of a dealership as “existing” " for purposes of section 56-15-46(C)(3), and that because the statute in question focuses on the “introduction of new competition for an existing dealership,” the location of a dealership—and not the identity of its owner—determined whether or not the protest exemption applied.

The preceding does not constitute legal advice. Consult counsel in your jurisdiction for advice regarding this subject matter.

Popular posts from this blog

Legalized, But Regulated: Commercial Hemp in South Carolina

Image
On December 20, 2018 the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018  (the "2018 Farm Bill") became law.  Following closely on the heels of the 2018 Farm Bill, on March 28, 2019 the South Carolina Hemp Farming Act  ("S.C. Hemp Farming Act") was signed into law.  The following is a brief overview of the status of hemp (also called "commercial hemp" or "industrial hemp") farming and regulation in South Carolina in the wake of the 2018 Farm Bill and the S.C. Hemp Farming Act. Background The terms "hemp" (which has non-drug connotations and uses) and "marijuana" (no further explanation necessary) describe the same plant genus: cannabis. The difference between the two is generally based on the relative amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the plant. Hemp plants are cultivated to produce fiber and seeds and very little if any THC. Marijuana plants, on the other hand, are cultivated to produce more THC. THC...
Read more

What Authority the Principal Chose: Arredondo, POAs, and Arbitrability

Image
It was only a matter of time before arbitrability (the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate) put a South Carolina courts in the position to construe the language in a power of attorney ("POA"). And this opinion did.  I try to view these decisions through the lens of how an attorney practicing in South Carolina might learn from them. And this decision, like some others involving the FAA and arbitrability, (for example, Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet  or Herron v. Century BMW  , had the litigator and the drafter in me scratching my head.  Or at least I was confused until I learned about what had happened legislatively in the time since the POAs at issue in Arredondo were scrutinized by three (3) South Carolina courts. This decision, involving a POA executed before January 1, 2017, is likely an anomaly or a one-off, as going forward the S.C. Uniform Power of Attorney Act (SCUPOA) provides a guide for the creation of POAs that may avoid the necessity for so much j...
Read more

The SC Insurance Data Security Act: Ask Some Questions to Evaluate Your Security Program

Image
The  South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act  (“Act”), fashioned after the  NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law  (Model Law), went into effect on January 1, 2019. South Carolina was the first state in the nation to pass this legislation, and others (Ohio, Mississippi), have followed suit. The Act requires that each South Carolina person licensed or authorized by the South Carolina Department of Insurance (DOI) a “Licensee” must implement, no later than July 1, 2019, a “comprehensive written information security program” (“Program”) designed to protect nonpublic information (NPI) and the security of the Licensee’s information system. In addition, the Act requires a Licensee to report to the Director of the DOI within 72 hours following an actual or potential “cybersecurity event.” S.C. Code Section 38-99-40(A) (Section 6(A) of the Model Act). While South Carolina Licensees (hopefully) are well down the path to meeting the Act’s requirements, the...
Read more