Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

William Charles ROSS, Appellant, v. The LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA,M.T. Walker and Barry Allen, of whom The Life Insurance Company of Virginiais Respondent.

November 5, 1979.

NESS, Justice:

This appeal is from an order sustaining respondent Life Insurance Company of Virginia's demurrer to appellant Ross' complaint for wrongful termination of employment. We affirm.

Appellant alleged respondent conspired with others to terminate his employment with Life Insurance Company of Virginia and tortiously interfered with their contractual relations. Respondent demurred on the ground the complaint failed to state a cause of action. We conclude the demurrer was properly sustained.

Appellant concedes his employment contract was terminable at the will of either party. South Carolina has embraced the general rule that such an employment contract may be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. Gainey v. Coker's Pedigreed Seed Company, 227 S.C. 200, 87 S.E. 3d 486 (1955); Annot., 62 A.L.R. 3d 271 (1975). Therefore, appellant's allegations of conspiracy fail to state a cause of action. Sams v. Brotherhood of Ry. Steamship Clerks, Sumter Lodge No. 6193, 166 F. Supp. 49 (E.D.S.C.), aff'd 233 F.2d 263 (4th Cir. 1956); Kirby v. Gulf Oil Corporation, et al., 230 S.C. 11, 94 S.E.2d 21 (1956); But see, Anderson v. Southern Ry. Co., et al., 224 S.C. 65, 77 S.E.2d 350 (1953).

Moreover, the South Carolina cases recognizing a cause of action for tortious interference with a contract have been limited to situations where an action was brought against third persons rather than parties to the contract. See, e.g., Smith v. Citizens Southern National Bank of S.C., 241 S.C. 285, 128 S.E.2d 112 (1962); Keels v. Powell, 207 S.C. 97, 34 S.E.2d 482 (1945). We decline to extend the doctrine in this case. Ryan v. Brooklyn Eye and Ear Hospital, et al., 46 A.D.2d 87, 360 N.Y.S.2d 912 (1974); Prosser, The Law of Torts, 934 (4th Ed. 1971).

Accordingly, we affirm.

LEWIS, C.J., and LITTLEJOHN, RHODES and GREGORY, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROSS v. LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA
(Nov 5, 1979)