The South Carolina Supreme Court issued an important opinion on April 23 that provides clarity and reassurance for real estate licensees across the state. In a decision stemming from a property dispute involving undisclosed moisture issues, the Court confirmed that South Carolina’s Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act shields real estate agents from liability under certain conditions.
The case arose after a couple purchased a home and later discovered significant moisture problems that were not disclosed on the Property Condition Disclosure Statement. The buyers sued both the seller and the listing agent, alleging that the failure to disclose the moisture problem.
The Court affirmed that the South Carolina Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act does not create a private cause of action against real estate agents. The Act only imposes liability on property owners (sellers), not licensees.
The Court also affirmed that a negligent misrepresentation claim requires justifiable reliance. Since Plaintiffs in this case relied on their own inspection and not the listing agent’s characterization of the report, the plaintiffs did not have grounds for a misrepresentation claim.
Additionally, the Court rejected the buyers’ negligent misrepresentation claim, explaining that such a claim requires proof of justifiable reliance. Since the plaintiffs had relied on their own home inspection, and not the agent’s summary or characterization of the property condition, the Court found that reliance on the listing agent’s statements was not justified.
This opinion reinforces what has long been understood by real estate professionals: while licensees play a key role in property transactions, they are not guarantors of the information sellers provide—so long as they act in good faith and without knowledge of inaccuracies.
The decision is a clear win for South Carolina licensees, continuing legal protections they enjoy under the 2002 Property Condition Disclosure Act and narrowing the scope of potential liability in disputes over undisclosed property conditions.
You can read the full opinion here: SC Supreme Court Opinion No. 28274