[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6310761,"mediaKeyId","2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d","parentId",2398386,"title","Retired Army veteran tells subcommittee household goods storage allegedly caused mold exposure; seeks accountability from contractor","audioSeconds",428,"startMs",1888000,"endMs",2316000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d&start=1888&end=2316","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d/thumbnail_1888000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6310761/South-Carolina/Retired-Army-veteran-tells-subcommittee-household-goods-storage-allegedly-caused-mold-exposure-seeks-accountability-from-contractor","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310761-09045fb0c940c39ff753b27b686a689c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566202&Signature=ZkWSbpC8S5DF~W~lcqFKnyoImPjsZi0bdCS7XaFTfCZ8LmkzBTFiT9lEP19xdgWmR2ntB5o-XtT5TxR8ymBt~Rtg8QpCkqKqKRrILAE0Sd5wzLoB0Nprf1MryMmhTn~Y6hNMTAjD54pD6aRGpJ6NL6A30MLmzjwwGZT4lWQxn19IhwDRchorJJfqFbCi-E6EHpR3eT5aLjzRk3VRVNKMCJfBM2z2nSQrPq0xdIcyZrde1mjBgCRAtfPjD-LxXpxq6ap-8Y28U69p6K1VndlYKd0gna6Rv2RFyomLP~19EgPnyO9D-oLly4TeaZYajfs8BjZqfuymqoIIZ513CSC~7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Judiciary Committee","date","2025-02-20T00:00:00Z","article","Marquetta McCall, a retired U.S. Army service member, told the subcommittee her household goods were returned from contractor storage contaminated with mold she identified as Aspergillus and Penicillium and described ongoing respiratory and other health problems in her family.

McCall said the goods in her house were stored under a Department of Defense contract with Smith Draylon and that she believes improper storage and lack of a climate‑controlled facility caused contamination. She described visual mold on furniture and on military uniforms: \"I pull out my military uniform. Mold growth is on my jacket,\" McCall said. She said independent environmental testing identified mold species not present in outdoor air around her home, which she said indicates contamination originated in storage.

McCall said a contractor‑hired firm (ABS Environmental) reported no mold in her house, but independent testing from another specialist contradicted that report. She said she had written to U.S. Senator Joe Wilson seeking assistance and was attempting to find legal counsel to pursue a claim against Smith Draylon.

The testimony was delivered during public comment and was not part of the subcommittee’s tort‑reform bill debate. Senators thanked McCall for testifying; no committee action was recorded in the transcript on the matter.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary Committee -- Judiciary Subcommittee on S.184 and S.244 - 02/20/2025","oneSentenceSummary","A retired Army veteran testified that household goods stored by a military contractor, Smith Draylon, were contaminated with Aspergillus and Penicillium mold, causing health problems for her and her family. She said contractor and third‑party environmental reports disagreed and that she is seeking legal help.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Standing, Senate, Committees, Legislative, South Carolina","taxId",17641,"location","South Carolina","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6310765,"Committee flags venue ambiguity for 'John Doe' defendants and seeks statutory clarification",167,6799000,6966000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d&start=6799&end=6966","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d/thumbnail_6799000.jpg","/articles/6310765/South-Carolina/Committee-flags-venue-ambiguity-for-John-Doe-defendants-and-seeks-statutory-clarification","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310765-40a0808f018a65e0c4534d06f36217dd/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566202&Signature=V1Gd0-PyxdcCVJx~gZlPUnvkhLnPXOeuTalSbAbYGIYuqfZR3E9Oy716z~vOsi~114~G2zPdLB~DSQwnjXv4kPlk74WrPgQ9aoZxUCJl9POBANl6ykf1dqa31rWzXF4CAjNQdvfgZe3xBKfg5hIEtVEjOhbLRYi2E27qrVjAS~xVYDrwe52vdY-rUGVUij8elp5UTcAfi8ttLLIRSUJqS6zlZa7mA5c3nNLx1Mj1CwfArSQdJaWpHIm1jTMmvAeBQIosObLvGAxGFoaYpbuxLtVtNw0KbO3TbDwQ87zRi1~9n4lEFtE8RlIPHb5V5d9MWmykrzppAAEardJUDF9yGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the subcommittee discussed an ambiguity in venue law when plaintiffs name an unknown or 'John Doe' defendant. Several senators said some courts have treated a John Doe as resident to retain venue in a county where the plaintiff filed the suit, creating instances of forum selection that senators called problematic.

One senator asked whether the venue rules that apply to nonresident defendants should apply equally to a John Doe defendant. Another senator said the fourteenth circuit had a differing reading, producing cases in which suits filed in distant counties were not moved despite the alleged incident occurring elsewhere.

Committee members indicated they would draft clarifying language to treat an unknown defendant for venue purposes similarly to a nonresident defendant so venue would lie either where the incident occurred or where the plaintiff resides. Senators asked staff to consider statutory language used elsewhere in the code as a model.","Senators discussed inconsistent interpretations across circuits about proper venue when plaintiffs name an unknown 'John Doe' defendant. Members proposed treating unnamed defendants as nonresidents for venue to avoid forum shopping.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6310770,"Subcommittee considers allowing failure to wear seat belt as evidence of proximate cause of damages",411,5997000,6408000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d&start=5997&end=6408","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d/thumbnail_5997000.jpg","/articles/6310770/South-Carolina/Subcommittee-considers-allowing-failure-to-wear-seat-belt-as-evidence-of-proximate-cause-of-damages","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310770-09684aa1433affd3251d84998fe37ea9/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566202&Signature=GTsk0L8K789gbh-t-GiMS~S6Sj9T1S9gCZgMeM7Qntn7EV~06VByTJ-EDij5Pkle8EtFo4gxGOtL9w2BLGoeuA88jUzgREujqU4DWoa1VeMWO6N1DysKwkwnuF-DJwNXNjn2dKgSOidBTNFPTrTcDJj5uAetnc1XSBWH9J-zPQivJBCRHEZdDkSucm2~Rx991h7SegP8izfGuueMVHXdhplRusquq47VzQf5ljaPEkwZAOtrY6OKGFdSm-KhKJomWeLFFde5K7Z8zixhjjToSTNhuHZaleQhII4keARu5drM~ICoFfpRsFOTkQzu~XKiN2ggLxMwjHWy36T7MNePvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Senate subcommittee discussed proposed language that would make failure to wear a seat belt admissible in civil actions only when the violation is a proximate cause of the claimed damages.

Megan McVeigh (witness) told the committee she favored limiting the proposed change to evidence of mitigation of damages. She suggested replacing broader comparative‑negligence wording with language that admits a seat‑belt violation \"if the violation is a proximate cause of the claimed damages.\" McVeigh explained the change preserves the distinction between liability for the crash and damages that might have been reduced by safety device use: \"Using a seat belt or not using a seat belt doesn't cause a wreck,\" she said.

Committee members discussed alternate wording to emphasize admissibility only when the failure to wear a belt contributed to the extent of injury; one senator proposed replacing \"is admissible\" with \"may be admissible\" to emphasize jury discretion.

The panel did not vote on text but directed staff to circulate compromise language that ties admissibility to proximate causation.","A witness urged the panel to treat seat‑belt violations as evidence of mitigation of damages only when the failure to buckle was a proximate cause of the claimed injury; senators signaled support for drafting narrower language.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6310775,"Public witnesses, senators press for clearer dram‑shop rules and stronger server training",305,51000,356000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d&start=51&end=356","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d/thumbnail_51000.jpg","/articles/6310775/South-Carolina/Public-witnesses-senators-press-for-clearer-dramshop-rules-and-stronger-server-training","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310775-3678a438b43bd3a1907cd62ee338627b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566202&Signature=YD~WLY81w3AktfZMCWcReB6k7FcqmS55iNeEoDqI1MkxuddX4i-Byg~0VCxYmxolHDfGbdJ1a-0mCOn7Xrwt6I07LnFP~JGZC5ugR0Q54IvWNq~tP4LvfEJLt441DVwWWBf7xXibB1-YcsV8hebzSIXYDnSd1fS7L-VKZEt~x4TM1JxLQersntceKdRUysovWf~fa33W5R7XT55lgHj5SbJfC5A0oJobfAqha-6KuKN~omihVjdBgbFfpxlWy1O4k26zskbjNpM73Y9XwYATy4OEaCGtdw-5MgIahxkahTiMNw9wmC8cRUDaieZOkOI7Ym-1byIe-z5NHGTNC5kMYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Public witnesses and committee members debated changes to liquor liability—commonly called dram‑shop—provisions, server training and how to define a restaurant that primarily and substantially serves food.

Laura Hudson, who testified during the public comment period, criticized current enforcement and urged stronger, mandatory administrative penalties for licensees that overserve or sell to underage customers. \"Penalties need to be mandatory,\" Hudson said, contrasting mandatory suspensions with what she described as inconsistent enforcement by the Department of Revenue.

Randall Smith, founder of Boating Safety South Carolina and a longtime advocate for boating safety, tied alcohol sales to traffic and boating fatalities in his testimony. Smith recounted the 1997 fatal boating crash in which his 11‑year‑old son died and described gaps in related liability and interlock laws: \"If someone is found guilty of driving under the influence, they can simply hop in their boat and drive to the bar. This loophole must be addressed immediately,\" he told the subcommittee.

Hudson suggested a bright‑line test to implement the constitutional language limiting saloons: measure food sales by receipts and require a threshold she recommended at about 40 percent of receipts from food to qualify as a restaurant. She said the current statutory phrasing — \"bona fide engaged primarily and substantially in the preparation and serving of meals\" — is difficult to enforce as written.

Members discussed server‑training provisions in the bill. The draft includes a mandatory server training requirement and an administrative penalty provision that a first offense could carry a suspension (the draft referenced a six‑month suspension for certain violations). Several senators and witnesses suggested allowing initial corrective measures for first offenses and stiffer penalties for repeat or egregious conduct. One legislator noted local pilot programs in Charleston using ID‑scanning technology (Intellicheck) that detected thousands of fake IDs and said technology could reduce underage sales.

Committee members also discussed how to coordinate enforcement with local governments. A senator suggested using city and town licensing and nuisance authority to help identify and sanction establishments with repeated problems.

Next steps: Senators instructed interested stakeholders — restaurateurs, liquor licensees, law enforcement, and insurance representatives — to continue drafting agreed language on how to define a restaurant, scale penalties for first and subsequent violations, and align server‑training requirements with insurer expectations.","Public commenters and senators discussed dram‑shop liability, penalties for overserving, a proposed percentage test for 'primarily and substantially' food service, and mandatory server training. Witnesses urged tougher penalties for repeat offenders; some senators recommended compromise language and local enforcement options.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6310780,"Senate subcommittee debates timeline changes to bad-faith insurance claims; members seek compromise",648,2392000,3040000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d&start=2392&end=3040","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398386-38f723e6a8de02bbdc3ed1b81ab06c4d/thumbnail_2392000.jpg","/articles/6310780/South-Carolina/Senate-subcommittee-debates-timeline-changes-to-bad-faith-insurance-claims-members-seek-compromise","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310780-c7940920ad9feb79e8f9821fe79c2053/orig.mp4?Expires=1773566202&Signature=fFLD21y0gS6ME2IFAgRK2ksxeTL397YylyzqVxwplLqx40OPRX-bx4OWNFlGiN-aJ8FPQMKdebR08HOy8tRm7T0AKO0-xt--Nt7H68nU3wBa48iH2xLhQLNBJ4Sbn3Vv9LDfY4Kg8iw04VgYXYnQGeN9yxdlUHFxehzudrQh0Jz1-YCqqygAkt3wOzFgV-NNLbrOxF27YRWrA7Dl1hNkwNf3Jh7vHFWXCMbit7S4WLBvKVszszODC8Zyoc-qfhfbHtuYDiAAo6S-ydHudOWFTV7Zckx3ihz84yz7riDsxEMNsGKiFD1IyaxzGUHBW2P3lW~96L6nvPl1PgdhhN07Xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Senate Judiciary subcommittee heard competing testimony on proposed changes to South Carolina bad‑faith insurance law that would set statutory deadlines for insurers to respond to pre‑suit demands and to post‑suit bad‑faith claims.

The changes under discussion would create a mandatory delay period before an insured or claimant may file a bad‑faith suit — provisions that witnesses warned could force small businesses and owner‑operators into bankruptcy if insurers withheld payment for months. Lee Cope, a witness who identified himself to the subcommittee, said, \"This 3 to 13 month time period ... makes 0 sense to me\" and argued the change would give insurers a built‑in financial incentive to delay payments. \"If I can hold on to that claim by this bill for 13 months, I'm gonna pay less,\" Cope told the panel.

Rob Moseley, another witness who described practical problems his clients face, agreed there is a problem with pressure tactics from demand letters but urged the committee to adopt a reasonable statutory time allowing insurers enough time to gather information. \"When it hits my desk, the clock starts. And I've got to go do in maybe under even under the bill 30 in 30, what the other lawyer had 6, 8 months to do,\" Moseley said, describing the operational burden on defense counsel and carriers.

Senators pressed both witnesses about an appropriate fixed timeframe. Senator Massey said in open exchange that \"90 days is too long\" for pre‑suit deadlines but also cautioned that two weeks is insufficient. Several committee members said they would prefer statutory clarity rather than relying solely on case law, while others said existing common law and recent court opinions already provide guardrails against abusive claims. One committee member summarized the split: \"We agree on so much... 90 days is too long. 2 weeks isn't enough.\"

Witnesses and senators flagged specific consequences for certain sectors if a long statutory delay is adopted. Cope described owner‑operators and small family businesses for whom a three‑month delay on a property damage claim could be catastrophic: \"If they have a property damage claim that keeps their truck off the road, 3 months bankrupts them. Absolutely.\" Moseley and others noted that policy provisions such as loss‑of‑use coverage may mitigate some losses but will not make small operations whole during lengthy delays.

Committee discussion repeatedly returned to the balance between protecting insureds from abusive insurer conduct and avoiding statutory windows that create predictable profit from holding claims. Cope cited recent case law and the state Supreme Court’s admonitions to lawyers as evidence that the courts already discourage frivolous or abusive bad‑faith litigation; Moseley and others said sanctions and doctrine do not fully prevent pressure tactics that leave insureds or claimants without timely remedies.

Votes at a glance: At the end of the hearing the subcommittee voted by voice to give favorable reports to two bills under consideration: S.184 (as presented to the subcommittee) and S.244 (as presented to the subcommittee). The vote was taken by voice; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript.

Next steps: Committee members asked witnesses and stakeholders to meet immediately to negotiate narrower, workable timeframes. Several senators said they were willing to continue discussions over the coming days and to propose amendments at the full‑committee stage rather than advancing the disputed sections unchanged.

","A Senate Judiciary subcommittee debated proposed changes to bad-faith insurance law that would create statutory time windows for insurers to respond to pre-suit demands and post‑suit bad‑faith claims. Witnesses and members disagreed on fixed deadlines; lawmakers directed stakeholders to negotiate narrower timeframes before the bill advances.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Retired Army veteran tells subcommittee household goods storage allegedly caused mold exposure; seeks accountability from contractor

Committee flags venue ambiguity for 'John Doe' defendants and seeks statutory clarification

Subcommittee considers allowing failure to wear seat belt as evidence of proximate cause of damages

Public witnesses, senators press for clearer dram‑shop rules and stronger server training

Senate subcommittee debates timeline changes to bad-faith insurance claims; members seek compromise