Senate debate on S.244 amendment exposes split over nonparty defendants, jury verdicts

The South Carolina Senate spent much of its floor time debating Amendment 1A to S.244, a contested change that would allow defendants to seek allocation of fault to nonparty entities on jury verdict forms and create procedural steps for doing so. The amendment’s sponsor said it was a narrow, process-oriented effort to allow orderly allocation of responsibility; opponents said it would enable insurance companies and defendants to shift liability onto injured parties and local businesses.

Supporters, led by Senator Goldfinch, the amendment’s floor sponsor, said the change restores an orderly process for identifying and placing nonparty defendants on the verdict form and would require service and proof before a jury could assign fault. “It does allow parties to be nonparties to be brought on put onto the verdict form, but it does it in an orderly way,” Senator Goldfinch said during floor debate, adding that the proposal was intended as a compromise to move the bill forward.

The amendment drew sustained questioning from senators across regions of the state. Senator Kimbrell (Spartanburg) asked whether the amendment would help address liquor-liability insurance rates that helped prompt the broader bill; the sponsor said the amendment focused on Section 1 and the verdict-form process rather than directly reducing premiums. Senator Diehl (Darlington) pressed whether the amendment would permit a defendant to shift liability to an immune foreign manufacturer, and Senator Goldfinch responded that the amendment creates a process — service, jurisdictional proof and discovery — before such a nonparty can be placed on a verdict form.

Opponents warned the amendment contained broad carve-outs that could swallow the change S.244 aims to make. Senator from Greenville Turner said the amendment “does nothing to address the problem” and warned it could harm small, local businesses and drive up litigation costs. Senator from Edgefield (debating against the amendment) characterized 1A as “a compromise among trial lawyers for trial lawyers” that, he argued, would undermine the joint-and-several liability reforms in the underlying bill.

Floor action produced a recorded vote on a procedural motion: the Senate voted 19–25 against tabling the amendment, so the amendment was not tabled and remained pending on the floor at the close of the session. Earlier in the session the Senate gave H.3952 a third reading and passed it on the local calendar, and senators also completed other routine confirmations and introductions earlier in the day.

Why it matters: S.244 is the vehicle for multiple civil-liability changes discussed by lawmakers as a response to rising commercial insurance costs, especially liquor-liability premiums cited by some senators. The debate over Amendment 1A centers on two recurring themes in the chamber: how to balance plaintiffs’ ability to be made whole with defendants’ procedural rights, and whether changes will reduce insurance rates or instead shift recoveries away from injured South Carolinians.

What’s next: The amendment remained pending at the end of the floor session. If adopted, it would alter how juries see and apportion fault when a defendant seeks to attribute some portion of liability to a nonparty. If it fails later, supporters said they may pursue other amendments or negotiations; opponents said they would continue to press the underlying bill without the amendment’s provisions.

Votes at a glance - Motion to table Amendment 1A to S.244: failed, 19–25 (motion to table defeated; amendment remained pending). - H.3952 (local bill): given a third reading and passed on the local calendar (voice/roll-call result reported on the floor). - Several confirmations (magistrate appointments) and routine introductions were recorded earlier in the session.

Attributions and tone: Direct quotes in this report are attributed to senators who spoke on the record during the S.244 debate on the Senate floor. Reporting limits itself to statements and outcomes recorded in the transcript; it does not infer downstream effects on insurance markets or litigation beyond what senators asserted on the floor.