actual settlement negotiations or, at the least, to a settlement relationship between the parties. Simply because the letters were sent by Commerce Center’s predecessor in interest does not remove the essential tone for settlement from the letters. Even assuming, arguendo, that redacted versions of the letters should have been admitted by the trial judge, we find no prejudice. It is well settled that the admission and rejection of testimony are matters largely within the trial court’s sound discretion, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Pike v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 343 S.C. 224, 540 S.E.2d 87 (2000); see also R & G Constr., Inc. v. Lowcountry Reg’l Transp. Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 540 S.E.2d 113 (Ct.App.2000), cert. granted (<HOLDING>). In order for this Court to reverse a case
holding that summary judgment may be reversed when it is based on an error of law holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available holding that the determination of whether statements are excited utterances is within the trial courts discretion and its ruling will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion holding the courts ruling to admit or exclude evidence will only be reversed if it constituted an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony