Austin v. Independent Life and Accident Ins. Co.

I concur in the result reached by the majority in Parts II and III of their opinion and concur fully in Part IY thereof.

*164As to Part II, I agree that the appellants The Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company and Murray Harter failed, as required by Rule 50(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, to include as a specific ground for their directed verdict motion the ground that Austin suffered no damage as a result of the appellant’s alleged fraud; therefore, they did not properly preserve this issue for appellate review, even considering the complaint’s allegations and the…