[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6310776,"mediaKeyId","2398380-fda6b40664bd37630df511eaf92ddcce","parentId",2398380,"title","Panel weighs whether uninsured/underinsured motorist policies must cover punitive awards","audioSeconds",950,"startMs",6420000,"endMs",7370000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398380-fda6b40664bd37630df511eaf92ddcce&start=6420&end=7370","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398380-fda6b40664bd37630df511eaf92ddcce/thumbnail_6420000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6310776/South-Carolina/Panel-weighs-whether-uninsuredunderinsured-motorist-policies-must-cover-punitive-awards","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310776-d048b22ae41ab59b9c7c1f50cdbc8a0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161541&Signature=Eu-pFXEapdp9cOgiS13SAwYanUArEgnrDHxLOUgnNADkgS1dwL~6KAYNvg9Ip9~0s~18f~DbZlYsFzb3OMaSFsOLreOTs-TFGzr5CRcz9PnlPvmEQJyq1pGZs7jX1oT9Wel~4f6PDAjOtlnbK~fmIBXFC-ZAudcxOgEdt6rFksJwoqWirWGCu-Qpz0jBilQtjoWudgsy8RJaV~R0HWpUhk2yXiRN7TVbXQrTdsAFSwQwHIqiOSMpvKgzK~yEPruVAfaw3tClDVVgVcl4rHw7imS95ZaTZSPyiZHNw5waYgVq8V9dFWulHzZ55jiox0~8IQEBrAEnV6xDA5vrV6qd6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Judiciary Committee","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","A Senate Judiciary subcommittee heard competing arguments about amendments to S.244 that would allow insurers to exclude punitive damages from mandatory uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.

The issue first drew attention when Brandon Gotchell, an attorney testifying for what he described as a policy change to align coverage with the punitive purpose, said the amendment would let an insurer decline to pay punitive awards in UIM claims unless a consumer purchased a specific endorsement. \"Why should my own insurance pay for the punishable conduct of someone else?\" Gotchell asked, arguing punitive damages are meant to punish the wrongdoer.

Gotchell used a hypothetical: if a driver with minimum limits (for example, $25,000) causes a wreck and a jury awards punitive damages, he said UIM carriers which step into the at-fault driver's shoes should not be required to cover that punitive portion. \"If you purchase it, you should receive that benefit,\" he added, but he said the Legislature should not require punitive coverage as a baseline.

Opponents warned the amendment would effectively nullify jury awards in many cases and shift costs to injured people. One testifier argued that when consumers buy UIM, the premium already reflects the risk that insurers might have to pay larger awards; removing the requirement could leave victims without expected recovery. Several senators asked whether the marketplace would continue to offer punitive endorsements and whether any premium savings would be passed to consumers.

Senators also discussed alternative approaches, including requiring insurers to offer both forms (one policy that includes punitive coverage and one that does not), or increasing mandatory liability minimums so fewer injured people must rely on UIM. Witnesses urged the committee to get input from insurance companies and actuaries before making structural changes.

The subcommittee did not vote. Members said they want insurer testimony and cost estimates before deciding whether to recommend the change to the full Senate.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary Committee -- Judiciary Subcommittee on S.184 and S.244 - 02/19/2025","oneSentenceSummary","A Senate Judiciary subcommittee heard competing arguments about amendments to S.244 that would allow insurers to exclude punitive damages from mandatory uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.","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},6310781,"Senate subcommittee debates narrowing 'occurrence' definition and tightening non-economic damage exception in medical-malpractice bill",6167,203000,6370000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398380-fda6b40664bd37630df511eaf92ddcce&start=203&end=6370","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398380-fda6b40664bd37630df511eaf92ddcce/thumbnail_203000.jpg","/articles/6310781/South-Carolina/Senate-subcommittee-debates-narrowing-occurrence-definition-and-tightening-non-economic-damage-exception-in-medical-malpractice-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310781-732c878b748faa31626942371a44710c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161541&Signature=Md3XPc1nujTJ4yNO4aiCB7XmLC47Q2mzkpEQZpvlpLfYPuv0ynbDq9ON5UTayN013AfNf~fGSEruV9r~m7uXW-fLXlfH836seBKAXXpgOIadpscAfETigHehxqr-t8uygXyAvjNR75bx7hJgpSbbGlLbhPxwaheuTyyaXF2fo0Dft8TlnaaHiSNPFRET7bz0v~T~wPoqKHhGZBDNy-t-PQtPE-9F5NBIHo39lnC7zrOcEVrTMkqzUaGlXw8H5ZlXYndZYlQDQTv3tRgEyxyvW4T78fRLkkKe9Jdlqi9wF3Epim5Db06~J7GZp-dutGv3FOvk94Res0fpi5sWvAc4zQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, lawmakers heard more than three hours of testimony over proposed changes in S.244 that would narrow the legal definition of an \"occurrence\" in medical-malpractice cases and raise the threshold for removing the statutory cap on non-economic damages.

The debate matters because the two provisions affect who pays for catastrophic medical injuries, the predictability of malpractice exposure for hospitals and doctors, and whether some families can recover full compensation for pain and suffering. Proponents say clearer definitions would help insurers and providers estimate risk; opponents say the changes would leave seriously injured South Carolinians with less recourse.

Scott Evans, an attorney testifying in favor of preserving the current standard, said the draft language would overturn decades of settled law and undermine juries' role. \"This body is being asked to bargain away the Seventh Amendment rights of our citizens for the benefit of two insurance companies whose bad faith has created an inconvenience,\" Evans said, citing long-running appeals and high-profile cases that returned large verdicts under the current rule.

Sunny Barnes, speaking for nonprofit and governmental health-care providers, told the panel he supports the bill’s stated goal of predictability but urged clearer, narrower drafting. \"If all the factors, all the acts of negligence lead to the same damage, then it should be considered one occurrence,\" Barnes said, arguing that expansive occurrence findings can nullify statutory caps and leave hospitals exposed beyond insurance limits.

Barnes and other provider witnesses described three separate health-care sectors in South Carolina—nonprofit systems, governmental providers and private for-profit physicians—and said the proposed changes would not affect those groups equally. Barnes asked the committee to consider parallel changes to the Solicitation of Charitable Funds Act so individual providers are not left exposed after large unfavorable verdicts.

Evans replied with a list of cases and victims he said illustrated the risk of changing the law now, including child and sexual-abuse survivors and a student who lost his chance to serve in the Army after a permanent brain injury. He said insurers such as MagMutual have resisted alternative dispute resolution in some recent cases, worsening conflicts and prompting the legislative effort.

Senators on the panel repeatedly asked whether the parties could draft a narrower, consensus definition linking \"occurrence\" to a break in the causal chain or other objective standards. Several witnesses, including Barnes and Lee Cope (a plaintiff attorney who spoke later), said they would be willing to sit down and try to craft language, but voiced different views on how much the statute should change.

No formal action or vote occurred in the hearing. Senators and witnesses asked for additional data, and several members urged stakeholders from all sides to negotiate language that preserves predictability without eliminating meaningful remedies for victims.

The subcommittee will take additional testimony and accept amendments before considering S.244 for a vote.","At a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, lawmakers heard more than three hours of testimony over proposed changes in S.244 that would narrow the legal definition of an \"occurrence\" in medical-malpractice cases and raise the threshold for removing the statutory cap on non-economic damages.",{"_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},6310771,"Hospitality owners warn of insurance market collapse for liquor liability; urge statutory changes and server training",1738,9261000,10999000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398380-fda6b40664bd37630df511eaf92ddcce&start=9261&end=10999","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398380-fda6b40664bd37630df511eaf92ddcce/thumbnail_9261000.jpg","/articles/6310771/South-Carolina/Hospitality-owners-warn-of-insurance-market-collapse-for-liquor-liability-urge-statutory-changes-and-server-training","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310771-1c941e4f54fe6e86d3c9be0b9a50d03a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161541&Signature=otVnCQM9cl9WBCWHA82z~C8ZFGgd5fX7twyoqmlioFBgMzRgjLGZ3jB3tA9g8mmHih-q0JM6fDRhjcAQo8qNynrxYO5ls0KuDCF8YVlurNQw6aaEEg-S4tKVEgOM9s-Zjqja9f2ZTwPtAjWZ~Y014B5GG0xBqz2X7Nm2lgtB-W5x9Cfx5KKYmuLoK2rWuosO3F66MXfX6wO-yBH9UP9w5DgL5pvJpVRrbRLnqnCy9oVyTGq~h08aaKpV~i2pNZd2cn8Et~9kYfsJijLaxad9W300mfJ4ZgFMUsYv9fAaLYSZG5R8z9lgbYcIEXFs3aVVav44855uWiutwe8uWlcijw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Owners of restaurants, hotels and catering businesses told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that a retreat by insurers from the liquor-liability market has made it difficult or impossible for many hospitality operators to obtain required coverage.

Sean Blake, an attorney representing the Responsible Hospitality Reform Association and several Charleston-area businesses, said carriers are withdrawing from the market because losses on liquor-liability business are too high. \"This is a crisis,\" Blake told the committee. \"There is no market for [many] fine dining establishments.\" He urged legislative action or a regulatory remedy to restore market capacity.

Witnesses offered specific examples. Blake said one operator, Uptown Social, saw liquor-liability premiums rise from $57,000 in 2018 to $1.1 million in 2024 despite no claims. Another owner, Table 301, received quotes showing an 86 percent year‑over‑year increase and could not find umbrella coverage; several brokers reportedly refused to quote coverage.

To reduce insurers' perceived risk, the hospitality group asked lawmakers to consider: (1) removing a statutory exception that subjects alcohol sellers to modified comparative liability even for small shares of fault; (2) adopting a clearer, \"bright-line\" statutory standard for dram-shop liability similar to Indiana's requirement that servers have actual knowledge a patron was visibly intoxicated; and (3) a statewide mandate for 100 percent alcohol‑server training.

Opponents of broad changes cautioned that some draft language in S.244 could expand liability in ways that would further deter carriers. Senator sponsors and other witnesses urged quick stakeholder negotiations; both sides agreed server training and stronger DUI enforcement would improve public safety and could help the market.

No committee vote occurred. Several senators encouraged immediate stakeholder talks and asked the Department of Insurance to provide confidential market data to inform any legislative fix.","Owners of restaurants, hotels and catering businesses told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that a retreat by insurers from the liquor-liability market has made it difficult or impossible for many hospitality operators to obtain required coverage.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel weighs whether uninsured/underinsured motorist policies must cover punitive awards

Senate subcommittee debates narrowing 'occurrence' definition and tightening non-economic damage exception in medical-malpractice bill

Hospitality owners warn of insurance market collapse for liquor liability; urge statutory changes and server training