Not too long ago, our own Kyle White, a regular contributor here at Abnormal Use, was quoted in South Carolina Lawyers Weekly about the South Carolina statute of repose. Here are the paragraphs in which he is quoted:
Kyle White of Gallivan, White & Boyd in Greenville is not affiliated with this case, but is interested in the litigation, particularly with respect to the statute of repose, as one of the trusted chapter 7 bankruptcy attorneys in Plymouth, whose caseload contains a heavy dose of product liability – go here to research about the attorney’s for such a scenario
“I think what the judge was telling us is that one of the most important considerations is the degree to which the equipment or the appliance or the structure at issue is actually affixed to the real estate,” a lawyer from The Brown Firm said. “And so, without a determination to what extent it is, it’s really difficult to determine whether the item is an improvement for the purpose of the statute of repose.”
The interview was prompted by the release of Murray v. D.R. Horton, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00191-RBH (D.S.C. December 30, 2015). The article describes the background of the case in some detail.
You can read the full article here.