Senate debates S.244 amendment on nonparty names on verdict forms; tabling motion fails 19-25

Senators debated Amendment 1A to S.244 — a provision aimed at letting defendants place certain nonparties or settled parties on jury verdict forms — in a session that stretched for hours and ended with a roll-call vote refusing to table the amendment.

The amendment, identified on the floor as 1A and described by its sponsor as an attempt to create a process for including nonparties on verdict forms, drew lengthy back-and-forth about juries, notice, and who ultimately bears the financial consequences of civil liability.

Supporters said the amendment adds a procedural path to put a nonparty on a verdict form only after a defendant identifies and serves that person, arguing the change restores tools the sponsor said the majority leader and others want. "This provides a mechanism ... to stick non parties and settled parties on the verdict form," Senator Goldfinch, the senator from Georgetown, told colleagues while defending the amendment's limits and process requirements.

Opponents said the amendment contains broad carve-outs that would swallow the intended reform and leave injured parties at greater risk. "This is a compromise among trial lawyers for trial lawyers," the senator from Edgefield said on the floor, arguing the amendment would, in practice, gut the bill's joint-and-several reform and expand litigation risk for South Carolina businesses and residents.

Debate focused on several recurring concerns: - Whether juries would be able to assess fault fairly if foreign or immune entities are listed on forms without meaningful discovery or notice; supporters said the amendment requires service and a process before any allocation of fault to a nonparty. - Which categories of potential nonparties would be excluded by the amendment; opponents pointed to the amendment's listed carve-outs — including immune parties, criminally charged actors, toxic torts, and claims based on statute — and warned those exceptions would greatly limit the rule's effect. - The practical effect on small businesses, insurers and injured plaintiffs if liability were shifted through verdict-form allocations rather than through named-party litigation.

Senators across the chamber pressed for specifics. Senator Diehl (Darlington) and Senator Devine (Richland) questioned whether the amendment would address the frequency or severity of claims that insurers cite when setting premiums; the amendment's sponsor said no guarantee of lower premiums exists but argued a process to allocate fault could address certain abusive defensive tactics. Senator Kennedy (Lexington) and Senator Turner (Greenville) echoed concerns about unintended consequences for small businesses.

The Senate took a roll-call vote on a motion to table the amendment. By a roll-call tally reported on the floor, the motion to table failed 19 to 25 — recorded in the chamber as "By a vote of 19 to 25, the Senate refuses to table the amendment." The final question on adoption of Amendment 1A remained pending on the floor after the tabling motion failed.

The Senate then took other procedural steps and ultimately adjourned; the record shows the adoption question was still pending when the body adjourned to its next scheduled meeting. No final recorded adoption of Amendment 1A appears in the transcript from this session.

What happened next: a roll-call on the tabling motion was completed; the amendment’s ultimate disposition was not resolved before adjournment. The transcript shows proponents and opponents agreed the underlying policy choices are complex and seat-wide negotiation would be necessary to produce a durable compromise.

Votes at a glance - Motion to table Amendment 1A: motion failed on roll call (19 in favor, 25 opposed); the clerk recorded the result on the floor as "the Senate refuses to table the amendment." The pending question after that vote was adoption of the amendment; no final adoption appears in the transcript prior to adjournment.

Context S.244 and the amendment were debated amid broader conversation about liability, insurance pricing, and litigation practice in South Carolina. Speakers referenced Rule 19 of civil procedure and the case Smith v. Tiffany during debate as background to the technical issues the amendment attempts to address. Senators on both sides said they were open to further negotiation but disagreed sharply on whether Amendment 1A as drafted preserved victims’ remedies or protected defendants and insurers from abuse.

Ending Senators agreed the subject remains unresolved. The transcript shows additional amendments and negotiations were anticipated; the Senate left the question of final adoption unresolved when it adjourned.