Janaury 8, 2014 South Carolina Court of Appeals published opinion

Teseniar v Professional Plastering & Stucco, Inc.

Tesenair sued professional and other contractors and subcontractors for construction defects at a condominium complex. Professional was not allowed to have its expert testify and the jury awarded judgment to Tesenair. The trial court also granted summary judgment on a cross claim against a subsubcontractor ruling Professional was barred from bringing suit as it was not a licensed stucco installer. The panel reversed. It held that the trial court erred by not giving reasons on the record for denying expert status to the witness and the panel held that its review of the witnesses education, experience and familiarity with the applicable codes and practices qualified him as an expert. It rejected an alternate theory based on discovery violations holding that the witness was designated a year before trail, Professional offered to forego testimony based on the omitted materials and one party actually deposed the witness the day before his scheduled testimony. As the testimony was not cumulative, the error was not harmless and new trial was ordered. The panel reversed on the cross claim holding that under South Carolina Code 40-11-270(C) Progressive was allowed to employ the subsubcontractor as that was within the license of the general contractor. Thus, suit was allowed.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s