Tasha Jones v. Lyndon Southern Insurance Company

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

Tasha Jones and Shaniqua Thompson, Respondents,

v.

Lyndon Southern Insurance Company, Safe Choice
Insurance, LLC, and Jupiter Managing General Agency,
Inc, Defendants,

Of which Lyndon Southern Insurance Company is the
Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001289

Appeal From Richland County
Clifton B. Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-020
Submitted October 1, 2025 – Filed January 21, 2026

AFFIRMED

Susan Pedrick McWilliams, of Maynard Nexsen, PC, of
Columbia; Kirsten Elena Small, of Maynard Nexsen, PC,
of Greenville; and Ransome Hayward Helmly, of
Ransome H. Helmly, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, all for
Appellant.
Dietrich Andre' Lake, of The Lake Law Firm, of
Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: In this insurance matter, originally arising from a motor vehicle
accident in 2017, Lyndon Southern Insurance Company (Lyndon) seeks to appeal
the trial court's denial of its post-trial motions, which upheld a jury verdict
awarding damages to Tasha Jones and Shaniqua Thompson (collectively,
Respondents). Unfortunately, this court is unable to address Lyndon's issues on
appeal. In its appellate brief, Lyndon attacks the trial court's denial of its post-trial
motions. However, Lyndon never appealed the trial court's order denying its
post-trial motions. Following the verdict, Lyndon did not make any post-trial
motions. After the jury was dismissed, the trial court and attorneys discussed
potential issues regarding damages. The court stated:

You know, they awarded 50,000 for the breach, 75,000
for the bad faith, and 350 for punitive. Now, whether or
not – the question you are all sort of posing, whether the
$50,000 for the breach has already been awarded by
Judge Hood or whether it's separate and apart from Judge
Hood's order, and I'm not – there is nothing before me.
Y'all are just asking me questions. There are no – there's
nothing pending before me.

Lyndon then stated, "I just want to renew my directed verdict motion." The court
responded, "Yes. We'll indicate that it was properly made, directed verdict motion,
but no post-trial motions were made."

The jury published its verdict on June 22, 2023. On July 3, 2023, Lyndon filed
motions seeking a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), a new trial
absolute, a new trial nisi remittitur, and any other appropriate relief.1 Thereafter,
on August 11, 2023, Lyndon filed a notice of appeal with this court, appealing the
verdict. On Respondents' motion, this court remanded jurisdiction to the trial court

1
See Rule 50(e), SCRCP ("The motion for judgment n.o.v. shall be made promptly
after the jury is discharged, or in the discretion of the court not later than 10 days
thereafter."); Rule 59(b), SCRCP ("The motion for a new trial shall be made
promptly after the jury is discharged, or in the discretion of the court not later than
10 days thereafter."). The record contains no evidence of Lyndon requesting more
time or the trial court approving such a request.
and stayed the appeal of the verdict until the trial court addressed Lyndon's
post-trial motions.

On March 27, 2024, the trial court issued a thirty-eight-page order denying
Lyndon's post-trial motions. However, Lyndon neither amended its prior notice of
appeal nor filed a second notice to appeal the order denying its post-trial motions.
Thus, the stay lifted on the appeal applied only to issues that occurred preverdict,
as Lyndon made no post-trial motions immediately after the jury's dismissal nor
requested an extension as permitted under Rule 59(b), SCRCP. See Rule
203(b)(1), SCACR ("A notice of appeal shall be served on all respondents within
thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment.");
Rule 203(d)(1)(B)(ii), SCACR ("The notice filed with the appellate court shall be
accompanied by the following: . . . [a] copy of the order(s) and judgment(s) to be
challenged on appeal if they have been reduced to writing . . . ." (emphasis added));
Rule 203(e)(1)(C), SCACR ("In appeals from lower courts, the notice of appeal
shall contain the following information: . . . [t]he date of the order, judgment, or
sentence from which the appeal is taken . . . ." (emphasis added)). Lyndon's brief
focuses on the trial court's denial of its post-trial motions. We are precluded from
reviewing this decision as it is now the law of the case. See Shirley's Iron Works,
Inc. v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573, 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("An
unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance."); Atl. Coast
Builders & Contractors, L.L.C. v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 329, 730 S.E.2d 282, 285
(2012) ("[A]n unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case.").

AFFIRMED.2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.