Senate debate on broad tort-and-insurance bill lays out competing visions on liability, nonparty verdicts and insurer duties

A long debate in the South Carolina Senate on March 5 focused on a complex bill that would change civil-liability rules, how juries may record fault for parties not named in a case, insurer bad-faith standards, dram-shop liability and several construction and medical-malpractice provisions.

Supporters, led in floor remarks by the senator from Edgefield, argued the measures are intended to align financial responsibility with who actually caused injuries and to reduce insurance costs that they say are harming businesses and some local industries. “I should be responsible for the damage that I cause. I should not be responsible for the damage that someone else causes,” the senator from Edgefield told colleagues during the two-day discussion.

Opponents warned the changes would shift losses onto injured people or third parties and described the proposal as a far broader rewrite of tort law than the chamber has previously considered. The senator from Williamsburg and others pressed for protections for plaintiffs, and repeatedly raised hypotheticals in which an injured person could end up with a smaller recovery if nonparty fault is placed on entities that are effectively outside the civil-claims process.

What the bill would do - End or sharply limit joint-and-several liability for many civil claims so each defendant generally pays only its share of fault, rather than allowing a plaintiff to collect the entire judgment from any single at-fault defendant. - Allow juries to record fault for “nonparty” tortfeasors (entities or people not joined as defendants) on a verdict form, even when those nonparties are not present at trial or are outside jurisdictional reach. The bill’s language does not require the nonparty be subject to state jurisdiction before appearing on a verdict form. - Add or clarify limits on punitive damages and on how multiple “occurrences” are counted for claims with damage caps (for example, some medical-malpractice provisions intended to prevent multiplication of caps across repeated triggers). - Establish timelines and safe-harbor language limiting when insurers face bad-faith claims, including a period after suit during which a claim of insurer bad faith would be subject to particular procedural rules; the bill’s sponsor said he expected further negotiation on the precise timing. - Expand administrative remedies tied to dram-shop claims involving overservice of alcohol and would allow the Department of Revenue to consider civil judgments in licensing decisions in some cases. - Modify statute-of-repose exceptions in construction-defect law so that some claims brought after the usual cut-off must meet additional criteria to proceed.

Key arguments from the floor Supporters: The sponsor and backers said the current combination of joint-and-several liability, the potential to attribute fault to nonparties and what they described as litigation-driven settlements are driving up insurance premiums for businesses, schools, utilities and local governments. They argued the bill increases fairness by ensuring defendants (and their insurers) pay only for the portion of harm they caused, and by reducing incentives for plaintiffs and insurers to seek outsized recoveries through legal strategies and settlement pressure.

Opponents: Critics said the changes would reduce recoveries for injured plaintiffs, create confusing public findings against companies that were not even sued and risk leaving seriously injured people unable to collect full compensation. Several senators repeatedly urged the sponsor to pair limits on defendants’ exposure with changes on the plaintiff side (for example, comparative-fault rules), arguing the bill as drafted creates new inequities.

Specific points of contention - Nonparty entries on verdict forms: Opponents said adding an ‘‘empty chair’’ (a nonparty) on a jury form without that party being joined or present would create public findings of fault without giving that party an opportunity to defend itself. Supporters countered that juries already weigh evidence about who caused harm and that the form simply records those perceptions so defendants do not pay for others’ conduct. - Bad-faith timing: The bill would set a statutory framework for when an insurer can be sued for bad faith after a claim is presented. The sponsor said a fixed period (he had proposed 10 months in conversation) provides certainty and protects insurers from premature bad-faith suits while discovery and settlement negotiations proceed; critics said a long statutory safe harbor could incentivize delay by insurers and disadvantage claimants. - Dram-shop and licensing: The bill would permit administrative action against an alcohol retailer based on a civil judgment that finds the retailer overserved a patron who subsequently harmed others. Supporters say stronger administrative penalties are needed to deter dangerous overservice; opponents say the change could punish lawful businesses because intoxication is not always predictable. - Construction and medical-malpractice timing: Supporters said more precise definitions of “occurrence” and clearer limits reduce open-ended liability for builders, lowering long-term premiums; opponents said exceptions (for example, building-code violations) already swallow repose limits and that care must be taken not to shift cleanup costs to taxpayers.

No final vote recorded in the transcript excerpt The transcript covers extended debate and multiple questions from members across the Senate; it does not include a final recorded vote on the bill in the provided excerpt. Several senators asked for and discussed possible amendments, and leadership repeatedly signaled further conversations and committee-level work.

What lawmakers said they want next Senators on both sides asked for continued negotiations and for more concrete actuarial evidence tying premium changes to specific statutory reforms. Supporters said they expect insurers and business groups to present data showing how litigation rules affect pricing; opponents asked for clearer guardrails protecting injured parties and for caution about administrative penalties tied to civil judgments.

Ending note The bill’s sponsor and several proponents said they are open to revisions — including changes on the bad-faith timing and occurrence definitions — but they argued the state needs substantive reform to address what they view as an unsustainable liability environment.