Legal Opinion · Dissent

Grinnell Corp. v. Wood

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided March 11, 2008No. 4355Published

1DissentShort, J.

I respectfully dissent.

The majority opinion distinguishes the facts and circumstances of this case from those in this court’s opinion in McDowell v. Travelers Property & Casualty Company, 357 S.C. 118, 590 S.E.2d 514 (Ct.App.2003). I conclude McDowell applies and would reverse the trial court’s reformation of the parties’ contract.

In McDowell, this court found a meaningful offer despite the failure of the offer form to meet the Wannamaker test. Id. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wannamaker, 291 S.C. 518, 521, 354 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1987) (adopting a four-part test for determining the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wannamaker Ex Rel. Estate of WannamakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
  2. Croft Ex Rel. Estate of Croft v. Old Republic InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
  3. Anders v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1992
  4. McDowell v. Travelers Property & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API