to judgment as a matter of law. Huggins, 585 S.E.2d at 277 (citing Simmons v. Tuomey Reg’l Med. Ctr., 341 S.C. 32, 533 S.E.2d 312 (2000)). South Carolina law recognizes reasonable limitations on tort liability in negligence actions where the plaintiffs have suffered no personal injury and have no direct relationship with the tortfeasor. See Hubbard & Felix, The South Carolina Law of Torts, 49 (3d Edition 2004) (“[A]s with emotional harm, the economic loss of a tort can extend indefinitely. Thus, in order to avoid disproportionate liability, plaintiffs who suffer economic loss, but who have no direct physical injury and no direct relationship with the defendant, may not be able to recover.”); see also Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927) (<HOLDING>); Booz-Allen, 346 S.E.2d at 324 (holding no
holding no right to recover for economic loss resulting from defendants injury to a third party with whom plaintiff has contractual business relationship recognizing that a forum selection clause also applies to a nonsignatory third party where the third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract holding that a clause providing that the insurer has a right to recover damages from a responsible third party referred to a tortfeasor because the use of damages in bodily injury cases means pecuniary compensation resulting from an unlawful or negligent act by a wrongdoer holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party holding that the economic loss doctrine will preclude conversion claims arising out of a contractual relationship