Roofer in Isle of Palms, SC

ISLE OF PALMS — Jimmy Carroll’s waterfront house is just a memory now.

The termites that chewed it up and the companies that were supposed to protect the home are the subject of a lawsuit that’s been spooling out for more than a decade and reached the state Supreme Court this summer.

“I bought it from friends in 2002 and raised my three sons there,” said Carroll, a recent mayor of the barrier island. “It was my dream home on the waterway with dock and pool.”

“After termites were found, I was hoping it wasn’t bad,” he said. "However, the further I went, the worse it was.”

The family moved out, Carroll said, and eventually the house was demolished. The property was later resold.

In 2015, Carroll sued Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc., successor company SPM Pest Management Company, and Terminex, which purchased some of SPM's assets in 2013. Terminex, which discovered the termite damage in 2014, was later dropped from the lawsuit.

One issue is Carroll’s claim that the termite treatments he contracted for were at some point switched to a different type of treatment without his knowledge.

For at least the past five years courts have wrangled with the question of what sort of claims Carroll could pursue, an argument Carroll’s side lost at every level, until the state Supreme Court took the case.

A key factor at issue is a legal doctrine known as the “economic loss rule” that tends to cause confusion, something Supreme Court Justice D. Garrison Hill broached in the court’s August ruling, saying “anyone who can explain the economic loss rule does not truly understand it.”

Carroll and his lawyer, Jody McKnight, said the ruling is a victory not just for Carroll but for others. Because the court decided he could sue for negligence, it opened the door to damage claims potentially in the millions. The case was then sent back to a lower court.

Charleston School of Law President Constance Anastopoulo, a professor who teaches torts and insurance law, said the Supreme Court did not change the rules involving contract claims versus tort claims that could involve negligence. Rather, it clarified the economic loss rule that lower courts had interpreted differently.

"In the Carroll v. Isle of Palms Pest Control, the Supreme Court ... clarified that the economic loss rule applies only in product liability cases and not to service contracts like pest control," she said.

In product liability cases, the economic loss rule generally limits people from suing for losses beyond the actual damage to the product, so long as it didn’t cause injuries. Product contracts can come into play in such cases, and in Carroll's, a $250,000 damage limit on his termite bond was also at issue — a termite bond being essentially a promise made by pest control companies to pay for damage if they failed to prevent harm from termites.

Pest control companies named in the suit had won in court at every level, seeking to have his negligence claims dismissed in a summary judgment. But with the Supreme Court’s reversal a trial is now scheduled in 2026.

“Right now it’s a question of liability and damages,” said Michael Ethridge, a lawyer representing SPM Pest Management. “We have faith in the process, and the Supreme Court has told us to go back to the trial court.”

A lawyer for Isle of Palms Pest Control declined to comment.

Hill's ruling summarized the ongoing case like this, with the "respondents" being the pest control companies.

"Respondents never kept their promise to maintain the bait stations. Instead, without letting Carroll know, they abandoned the bait station system and began treating his home with a liquid application. There is evidence the application was done negligently," wrote Hill.

"Oblivious to the change in treatment type, Carroll renewed the bait station contract each year. Some ten years later, it was discovered Carroll's home was riddled with termites. Carroll sued Respondents for negligence and breach of contract," he continued.

It was the negligence claim that lower courts had thrown out, before the higher court reversed those decisions.

McKnight, Carroll's lawyer, said: "It is a landmark South Carolina Supreme Court decision that will have far reaching implications not only for this case, but for all contract litigants in our state going forward."

ISLE OF PALMS — Less than a month after an order was issued calling for a beachfront homeowner to tear down a seawall built behind his home, a judge says the wall can stay — for now.

S.C. Administrative Law Chief Judge Ralph K. Anderson, III, rescinded his order on Nov. 10 which directed Isle of Palms homeowner Rom Reddy to remove the wall behind his ocean-facing home and tossed out $289,000 worth of fines he was issued by the Department of Environmental Services.

The rescinded decision came shortly after Reddy, DES and the Coastal Conservation League filed motions on Nov. 3 asking Anderson to reconsider his final order. Anderson’s reversal gives him more time to review the three motions.

“Judge Anderson has been very fair to me and my wife during trial and I believe he is committed to upholding the rule of law,” Reddy said in a statement to The Post and Courier on Nov. 11.

Reddy built the wall to protect his home from the extreme erosion the Isle of Palms has faced in recent years. He constructed the structure in what the state considers a critical area, a protected portion of the beach that requires permitting before any construction can occur. It was buried beneath sand.

The state had not issued any permits for the wall. Later, following a nor’easter in December 2023, the barrier was exposed. Environmental agents learned about the structure as Reddy was working to repair the damage caused by the storm.

The state, joined later by the Coastal Conservation League, took Reddy to court. The homeowner represented himself in the matter in May in a hearing that lasted several days.

Despite the Oct. 23 order to remove the wall, Reddy celebrated parts the final order when it was issued. He applauded the dismissal of the fines levied against him and his wife by the state, though hedged that it wasn’t a “complete vindication of private property rights.”

“There is still much work to be done,” he said in a statement last month.

The Coastal Conservation League and DES also felt positively about Anderson’s previous order calling for the removal of the wall.

“We certainly were pleased with his conclusions that the wall impacts public access and public property,” said Leslie Lenhardt, a South Carolina Environmental Law Project attorney representing the Coastal Conservation League. “We're glad that he ordered the submittal of a corrective action plan, as opposed to saying the wall can stay.”

Lenhardt added that certain aspects of the order were concerning to both CCL and DES, including the absence of timeframe for the wall’s removal, prompting both parties to file motions for reconsideration.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) - Polls closed at 7 p.m. Tuesday across South Carolina in local races that state election officials say have a direct impact on the day-to-day lives of people in the Lowcountry.

Charleston County election leaders expect voter turnout to hover around 20 percent this year, with only municipal races on the ballot and no statewide or federal contests. Charleston County Board of Elections Executive Director Isaac Cramer said even though these races don’t attract the same attention as presidential elections, they are still critical.

“Municipal elections just don’t have the same level of engagement,” Cramer said. “Although it’s not national headlines, they are local issues that affect each one of us in our day-to-day lives. Our goal is just to let people know that there’s an election, there’s time to do your research, look up the candidates, but know that today’s election does impact your day-to-day life.”

Cramer said the ballots across the county vary by city and district, with many positions up for grabs.

“Across Charleston County, we have many municipalities voting for mayor, for council, we have CPW, which is Commissioner for Public Works, we have watershed commissioners,” Cramer said. “So we’ll have a wide range of different things on the ballot, but for a lot of the city of Charleston this is very important. You won’t have council on your ballot unless you live in an even district. If you live in an odd district, you will only have CPW on your ballot.”

Click here for the Live 5 2025 Voter Guide.

Some of the key local elections include the mayors’ races in Mount Pleasant, Isle of Palms, Folly Beach, Sullivan’s Island, and Lincolnville. Several city and town council seats are also on the ballot in Charleston, Summerville, Goose Creek, and Moncks Corner, along with a special election for State House District 98. In total, dozens of municipal offices from water commissioners to council members are up for grabs across Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester counties.

Election officials say the quiet nature of local election years means most polling places are not expected to be crowded. The best time to avoid lines is typically early afternoon, avoiding lunch and evening rush hours.

More than 3.35 million people are registered to vote statewide. In the Tri-County area, Charleston County has 272,000 registered voters, Berkeley County has about 155,000, and Dorchester County has just under 105,000.

Greenville County has the most registered voters in the state with just under 341,000, while Allendale County has the fewest at about 4,000.

Voters heading to the polls today will need a photo ID, though it does not have to be a Real ID used for air travel. Those voting absentee must ensure their ballots are returned to the Charleston County Board of Voter Registration and Elections by 7 p.m.

Click here to verify your voter registration, get a sample ballot or find your voting location.

Absentee ballots must be returned to the Charleston County Board of Voter Registration and Elections by 7 p.m.

All polling locations offer accessible parking spots, doorways, railings and paths. Residents with disabilities may receive help during the voting process but must tell a poll manager if assistance is needed. Voters can choose anyone to help except their employer, an agent of their employer, or an officer or agent of their union.

Curbside voting is available for those with disabilities or voters 65 years or older. Poll managers monitor the area every 15 minutes to assist anyone who cannot stand in line.

Polls are open until 7 p.m.

A wealthy Isle of Palms man accused of having a seawall built illegally on the beach at his home must tear out the wall, a judge ruled Thursday in an order that supports the state’s right to protect beaches from encroaching development.

Judge Ralph K. Anderson III said removal of Rom Reddy’s seawall “is warranted’’ under the state’s beach protection law.

The ruling was seen as a victory for advocates of preserving state beaches for the public, but it was not a resounding affirmation of the S.C. Department of Environmental Services’ efforts to fine people who break the law.

In his ruling, Anderson tossed out a whopping $289,000 fine against the Isle of Palms property owner, saying it was not warranted. The judge said Reddy made a good faith effort to protect his land, even though building a seawall on the beach hurts the public’s use and enjoyment of the shore.

At issue is whether the outspoken Reddy followed state law when contractors built a seawall in front of his house following bad weather and pounding surf that threatened his home. Reddy’s beach house is at the lower end of the Isle of Palms across an inlet from Sullivans Island in Charleston County.

While Reddy says he has a right to protect his property and did the work outside of state jurisdiction, coastal regulators say the seawall is in state jurisdiction and violates the state coastal management law that banned new seawalls in 1988. Reddy represented himself in a trial before Anderson five months ago.

The Reddy case, filled with accusations of government overreach, has simmered for several years, and its outcome could help guide South Carolina on how tightly it enforces the state’s decades-old beachfront management law. The law banned new seawalls on the beach more than 30 years ago because the structures can worsen beach erosion and block public access to the shore.

Anderson’s ruling drew praise from both the S.C. Department of Environmental Services and the S.C. Environmental Law Project, a non-profit legal service that supported state action against Reddy. Environment department officials were not made available for an interview but the agency issued a statement late Thursday afternoon.

“Judge Anderson’s October 23 ruling supports SC DES’s position that the Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act, as enacted by the General Assembly, prioritizes the protection of South Carolina’s coast for the benefit of all,’’’ according to the statement from SC DES spokeswoman Laura Renwick. “The ruling upholds the agency’s determination that this particular seawall must be removed.’’

Seawalls are a concern in South Carolina and other places because, while they protect valuable oceanfront homes and hotels, they worsen erosion when pounded by waves. That narrows the public beach, giving people less dry sand to walk and play on. Walls also can jut out so far that they block access for people walking down the seashore.

Amy Armstrong and Leslie Lenhardt, law project attorneys involved in the case, said they were disappointed the fine had been tossed out, but the key was upholding the right of the state to require Reddy to tear out the seawall. The ruling helps protect state beaches from further attempts to build erosion-worsening seawalls, Armstrong said.

They noted that Anderson’s order said the Reddy seawall had “accelerated erosion’’ of the beach at Isle of Palms. The ruling did not give a timeline for tearing out the wall, but said a plan must be developed to do so. The order is notable because South Carolina courts don’t often tell property owners to tear down illegal structures they’ve built. Reddy has said he may appeal the decision to a higher court.

Reddy declined to be interviewed. He sent a text to The State expressing satisfaction that the $289,000 fine was tossed out, but said the ruling did not go far enough. Reddy’s text said Anderson “vacated an unjust penalty against me and raised legitimate, long-overdue questions about the ability of state bureaucrats to impose their will on private property owners.

“There is still much work to be done, however, as the judge’s ruling is unfortunately not a full and complete vindication of private property rights — meaning those who do not have the means to defend themselves against the bureaucratic state remain in danger of its oppressive action,’’ Reddy’s text said, noting that “if citizens don’t stand up, if we don’t push back against this weaponized government, that is how tyranny takes root.’’

Anderson agreed that while Reddy was wrong to construct the seawall, he did not do so with “willful’ intent because the state had sent mixed messages on whether the construction was legal. State regulators dispute that.

Specifically, the case centered on whether seawalls can be constructed beyond state building restriction lines on the beach. The lines were set up in the late 1980s and have been used in an attempt to prevent building too far on to the shore. But in recent years, beaches have eroded landward of the building restriction lines — known as setbacks — and turned vegetated land that had not been regulated into sandy beach. In Reddy’s case, state officials argued the area where he built the seawall had become sandy beach subject to state jurisdiction.

Rising sea levels and more intense storms have exposed multiple places along the state’s coastline that regulators say are now jurisdictional, but were not in the past.

Anderson wrote that “the department has permitting authority since it could not otherwise protect the entirety of the coastal zone if it were unable to exercise regulatory authority over the beaches, irrespective of the location of the setback line.’’

The judge said Reddy must “submit a corrective action plan for the removal of the hard erosion control structure.’’

Reddy, who bought his house at Isle of Palms just over a decade ago, is an affluent businessman who owns several small newspapers in the Charleston area. He says he has a litany of experience in other fields. He has said he is an engineer and the one-time owner of an artificial turf company that sold the synthetic grass for 270 stadiums nationally one year.

An ardent supporter of President Donald Trump, Reddy has started a political action committee to help candidates who want to cut state regulations and reduce the size of government.

His disdain for the government has been evident throughout the heated seawall dispute. He’s accused regulators of targeting him and trying to limit his freedoms. At one point, he said the state was using Gestapo-like tactics, a reference to the sadistic Nazi military force of World War II. Anderson had refused to toss the case out, resulting in the trial.

This story has been updated with comments from Reddy, state regulators and environmentalists

ISLE OF PALMS — The controversial seawall built by a wealthy homeowner must be torn down, a judge ruled Oct. 23.

The order came down from S.C. Administrative Law Court Chief Justice Ralph K. Anderson III. Anderson mandated that Rom and Renee Reddy remove the hard erosion control structure built behind their home near Isle of Palm’s Breach Inlet.

Anderson wrote in his order that the wall has “accelerated erosion of the adjacent beach and, in doing so, adversely affected the public.”

At the same time, the judge threw out the $289,000 civil penalties levied against the homeowners. Anderson ruled that the Reddys’ construction of the wall were done in a '“good faith effort” to protect their home from further erosion, and believed that the state Department of Environmental Services’ permitting authority did not apply to where the wall was located.

The Reddys’ home is situated on the south end of the island, an area that has experienced significant erosion in recent years. Rom Reddy contended that he built the wall to protect his multi-million dollar property from these impacts— and felt he was well within his rights to do so.

The state disagreed, issuing several stop-work orders in late 2023 and early 2024 to the homeowners as they repaired the structure from storm-related damage. The wall was in the beach’s critical area, state agents said, a protected portion of the coast that requires permitting for any construction to occur. Reddy had not obtained these permits from DES before beginning work on the wall, believing that the where the wall was built fell outside the agency’s permitting scope.

The state, joined later by the Coastal Conservation League, took the couple to court over the structure. Rom Reddy represented himself in the matter in May, going head-to-head with the state agency.

In a written statement, Reddy said the court vacated “an unjust penalty” and raised legitimate questions about state overreach.

“These are critical victories for the citizens of this state — and a clear sign that the days of environmental bureaucrats exercising unchecked power over the people are at an end,” he said.

Reddy will have 30 days to appeal the ruling.

“There is still much work to be done, however, as the judge's ruling is unfortunately not a full and complete vindication of private property rights,” Reddy said.

A DES spokesperson said the agency appreciated Anderson’s “meticulous review” of the case.

“Judge Anderson’s October 23 ruling supports SCDES’s position that the Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act, as enacted by the General Assembly, prioritizes the protection of South Carolina’s coast for the benefit of all. The ruling upholds the agency’s determination that this particular seawall must be removed,” the agency spokesperson said in a written statement.