Ross v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Angus v. Burroughs & Chapin Co. (S.C. Ct. App. 2004)
- Angus v. Burroughs & Chapin Co. (S.C. 2006)
- Hickman v. Winston County Hosp. Bd. (Ala. 1987)
- Satterfield v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. (District Court, D. South Carolina 1985)
- Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co. (District Court, D. South Carolina 1981)
- Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc. (S.C. Ct. App. 1984)
- Todd v. SC FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS. CO. (S.C. Ct. App. 1984)
- Hall v. UBS Financial Services Inc. (S.C. 2021)
- Pridgen v. Ward (S.C. Ct. App. 2010)
- Anthony v. Ward (4th Cir. 2009)
- Alonso v. McAllister Towing of Charleston, Inc. (District Court, D. South Carolina 2009)
- Collins Music v. Lambrou (S.C. Ct. App. 2003)
- Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. CLM EQUIP. COMPANY, INC. (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 2002)
- Toth v. Square D Co. (District Court, D. South Carolina 1989)
- Mills v. Leath (District Court, D. South Carolina 1988)
- Lick Creek Sewer Systems, Inc. v. Bank of Bourbon (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)
- Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance (S.C. Ct. App. 1984)
- Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance (S.C. 1981)
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. Clark (Md. 1981)
- Wadford v. Cooper (District Court, D. South Carolina 2024)
- Alvarez v. The Davey Tree Expert Company, LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2024)
- Moody v. McLellan (S.C. Ct. App. 1988)
- Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc. (S.C. 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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).
*766 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.