Senate debate on S.244 focuses on dram-shop rules, joint-and-several liability and insurance changes

The South Carolina Senate spent an extended period debating S.244, a comprehensive tort‑reform bill that would recodify liquor‑liability (dram‑shop) law, add mandatory alcohol‑server training, change joint‑and‑several liability rules and permit juries to record nonparty fault on verdict forms.

The bill was explained to the chamber by Senator Johnson, the senator from York, who said the measure "amends the joint and several liability statute, so that non parties are put on the verdict form" and that it "codifies the dram shop law" while adding a requirement that licensees carry $1,000,000 in liquor‑liability coverage per occurrence. Johnson also described a server‑training program and a $50 fee for initial certification and a five‑year recertification cycle.

Why it matters: Supporters say the package is intended to rebalance liability so businesses pay for the harm they cause and to restore competition in the insurance market by lowering perceived risk for carriers. Opponents warn the bill could limit plaintiffs’ recoveries in some cases and create procedural openings that shift fault to parties who are not defendants in a suit.

Key provisions and debate

Dram shop and server training: The bill would define "visible intoxication" and create a civil cause of action when a licensee knowingly furnishes alcohol that is a proximate cause of third‑party injury. It would require alcohol‑server training that the bill’s backers said would be delivered online, capped at a fee not to exceed $50, and valid for five years. Senator Johnson described the training as covering state law, the physiologic effects of alcohol, and how to identify and refuse service to visibly intoxicated or underage patrons. Senator Garrett (Greenwood) pressed whether the measure guarantees lower premiums for hospitality businesses; Johnson said, "There are no guarantees."

Joint‑and‑several liability and nonparty findings: Section 1 would replace broad joint‑and‑several liability with a several‑based scheme and permit juries to record the percentage of fault attributable to persons who are not defendants (nonparty tortfeasors). Sponsors said that change would prevent a single defendant from being required to pay damages that a jury found were largely caused by another actor not before the court. Opponents raised constitutional and due‑process concerns about allowing nonparty fault to be read to juries without formal notice or participation by the nonparty.

Insurance‑related and other civil changes: Senators discussed additional provisions that would (a) require licensees to carry $1,000,000 in liquor liability per occurrence; (b) authorize captive insurers for liquor coverage; (c) change aspects of the statute of repose for construction claims; and (d) revise procedures around bad‑faith claims, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and other liability rules. Committee authors said some sections (including bad‑faith and certain med‑mal elements) will need further drafting.

Concerns from members: Several senators asked whether the bill will actually lower premiums and restore market competition; multiple members, including Senator Garrett and Senator Kennedy, urged caution and asked for more data from insurers. Director testimony to the committee and to the full Senate, members said, did not yield direct commitments from carriers. Critics likewise warned a nonparty‑fault regime could be used by defendants to point juries toward entities (including entities outside jurisdiction or immune entities) from which practical recovery would be unlikely.

Procedural status and next steps: The measure was the special‑order item and drew extensive floor questions and debate. At the close of the session the Senate voted to carry over S.244 for further consideration; Senator Massey (Edgefield) moved the carry‑over and the motion carried by voice vote. No final substantive vote on the bill or its sections was taken during the session. Sponsors and opponents said they will continue to negotiate amendments; several senators asked for additional opportunity to question authors and committee staff before amendments are filed and voted.

What remains unresolved: Senators repeatedly requested direct, verifiable data tying the proposed text to actual premium reductions. The bill as filed contains no guaranteed premium reductions; instead sponsors pointed to experience in other states and to a broader market‑competition rationale. Members on both sides flagged specific sections (nonparty findings at trial, the standard for underage service, server‑training penalties and the statute‑of‑repose changes) as priorities for amendment.

The Senate will resume consideration after the measure is carried over; leaders indicated more floor time and amendment votes are expected in the next sitting.

Ending: The Senate carried S.244 over by voice vote and will take up amendments at a future date; senators said they intend to continue negotiating wording intended to preserve plaintiffs’ access to courts while addressing what sponsors called an insurance‑market problem.