Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Petitioner. General Counsel Matthew C. Buchanan, of Columbia, for Respondent.

The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Grissett, Op. No. 2021-UP-351 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Oct. 13, 2021).

David Grant Harris, II, Brady Allen Yntema and David L. Brown, all of Goldberg Segalla, LLP, of Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner. G. Murrell Smith, Jr., Jonathan M. Robinson and Shanon N. Peake of Smith Robinson Holler DuBose and Morgan, LLC, of Columbia; and William Bradley Nes of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, of Washington, DC, all for Respondent.

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in Covil Corp. by & through Protopapas v. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 436 S.C. 85, 870 S.E.2d 191 (Ct. App. 2022). The court of appeals held (1) granting partial summary judgment for insured was not premature, (2) insured's late notice of the underlying lawsuit to insurer did not bar coverage, and (3) coverage was not barred by the policy's products hazard exclusion or the completed operations hazard exclusion.

John Thomas Gentry, III, of Charleston, for Plaintiff. Robin Lilley Jackson, of Senn Legal, LLC, of Charleston, for Defendants.

South Carolina Code section 15-78-30(f) provides the term "loss" as used in the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (S.C. Code § 15-78-10, et seq.) does not include damages for the intentional infliction of emotional harm. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina certified the following question for this Court's consideration: Does the bar under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act of claims of "intentional infliction of emotional harm" apply to claims of reckless infliction of emotional distress?

Kirsten Leslie Barr, of Trask & Howell, L.L.C., of Mt. Pleasant, for Petitioners. Stephen Benjamin Samuels, of Samuels Reynolds Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

We have granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals in Davis v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Op. No. 2022-UP-081 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Mar. 23, 2022). Petitioners contend the court of appeals (1) did not have appellate jurisdiction to review and then vacate a portion of an order of the Workers' Compensation Commission, as the order was interlocutory; (2) erred as a matter of law in its analysis of the Commission's order; and (3) erred in remanding the matter to the Commission when no further issues germane to the appeal were pending.