claims of negligence, fraud, etc. in failing to apprise Dent of the presence of wood-treating constituents when Dent purchased the property from Agrico. Under South Carolina law, as generally, the right to equitable indemnification for incurring such costs does not depend upon the existence of any contractual or other special relation between indemnitor and indemnitee. Entitlement to equitable indemnification ' arises simply out of the necessity to defend a claim based upon the wrongful conduct— contractual or tortious—of a third party. It does not depend on there having been any contractual or other special relationship be tween the wrongdoer and the person forced to defend against the claim. See Town of Winnsboro v. Wiedeman-Singleton, 307 S.C. 128, 414 S.E.2d 118, 121 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Stuck v. Pioneer Logging Mach., Inc., 279
recognizing that either party to a divorce action may bring in third parties who claim an interest in the property alleged to be community or third parties themselves may intervene and have their rights therein determined holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer holding that majority shareholder who guaranteed debt was not a third party beneficiary and thus lack standing to bring action for tortious interference of corporations contract with defendant holding that recovery is allowed when as a result of defendants breach of contract or tortious activity the plaintiff is required to either defend itself or bring an action against a third party holding that for the purposes of standing to bring an action to recover on a contract privity is established by proving the defendant was a party to an enforceable contract with either the plaintiff or a party who assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff