Senate opens wide-ranging tort-reform debate over dram-shop, joint-and-several rules; S.244 carried over

The South Carolina Senate spent a major portion of its floor session debating S.244, an omnibus tort-reform measure that would rewrite how civil liability is apportioned in many types of negligence cases and alter state rules for liquor liability, insurance coverage and construction-defect claims. Senator Johnson (Senator from York), who led the subcommittee that drafted and presented the measure, described the package as a combination of changes to joint-and-several liability, dram-shop (liquor-liability) law, server training, the statute of repose, and insurer-related rules.

S.244’s core aim, as presented on the floor, is to make juries able to apportion fault to “non‑party” tortfeasors on the verdict form so defendants are responsible only for the share of fault a jury assigns them rather than being exposed to unlimited joint-and-several liability. The bill also would explicitly codify a state dram‑shop standard: vendors and licensees could be civilly liable to third parties only where the sale or service of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person (or where it was reasonably foreseeable the person would become intoxicated) was a proximate cause of the injury. Senator Johnson summarized that the measure would "amend the joint and several liability statute, so that non parties are put on the verdict form."

Why it matters: lawmakers and business groups framed the bill as an attempt to lower liability exposure that they say has driven up insurance premiums and reduced market capacity for certain commercial lines (notably liquor liability). Opponents warned the package could restrict victims’ recovery rights and create procedural or fairness problems when “non‑party” fault is placed before juries.

Key provisions described on the floor - Joint and several liability: The bill would move South Carolina away from traditional joint-and-several exposure in many civil cases by permitting juries to allocate percentages of fault to non‑parties on the verdict form; defendants would be responsible for their assigned share. The bill would also repeal or replace several contribution provisions currently in code (committee discussion cited existing statutory sections that would be made redundant under this new structure). - Dram‑shop / liquor-liability rules: The bill would define “visible intoxication” and make a licensee civilly liable if it knowingly sells, serves, or furnishes alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person (or to someone the seller reasonably should have known would become intoxicated) and that sale was a proximate cause of injury. It would also impose a new minimum-liability insurance requirement for many licensees: a $1,000,000 limit per occurrence (the bill text presented on the floor specifies per‑occurrence, not aggregate). - Server training and certification: The measure includes a statewide server-training program. As described on the floor, training would be available online; the fee “not to exceed $50”; certificates would be transferable between employers and remain valid for five years, with a recertification process to be established. - Statute of repose and construction-defect language: The bill would amend the statute of repose and other construction‑defect related provisions; witnesses before the subcommittee testified they opposed aspects of the proposed changes and that the language needed refinement. - Insurance and bad-faith provisions: S.244 would change how uninsured/underinsured motorist policies treat punitive damages, modify parameters for bad‑faith claims, and adjust how captive insurers and other carriers may offer liquor-liability coverage. It would also require insurers (or clerks) to notify the Department of Revenue when a licensed retail seller’s claims exceed statutory thresholds, as part of a process that could trigger license-review steps.

What proponents said: Senator Johnson and subcommittee members said the package is meant to rebalance liability so businesses are not liable for harms they did not cause, restore predictability to underwriting, and encourage more carriers to offer coverage in the state. Johnson told the chamber the subcommittee took "hours and hours" of testimony and that the dram-shop language was intended to align civil liability with what a reasonable server should have foreseen.

What opponents said: Consumer‑advocacy groups and several senators warned that the proposal, as written, could undercut victims’ rights and produce out‑of‑court consequences that would not be reversible. Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other victim advocates testified to the committee and told senators they opposed provisions that would, in their view, weaken remedies for people injured by intoxicated drivers. Hospitality industry witnesses at one subcommittee hearing also said the bill as drafted did not give them the specific protections they want; some industry representatives asked for additional, more targeted changes. Several senators repeatedly pressed bill authors on a central point: no insurer or industry witness in committee guaranteed that the bill would lower premiums. As Senator Garrett (Senator from Greenwood) asked, "Can you show me anywhere in your bill where you show me that there's gonna be a reduction in premiums for liquor liability?" The repeated answer on the floor was that no lawmaker or industry witness could promise a specific premium reduction.

Policy and procedural disputes on the floor - Non‑party entries on verdict forms: Several senators asked whether allowing juries to apportion fault to non‑parties — including entities that might be hard to summon, outside the state, or otherwise statutorily immune — could create unfair outcomes or last‑minute strategic litigation. Authors said they were open to notice or safeguard language to avoid surprises at trial; opponents sought explicit notice and due‑process protections. - Limits and guarantees: Lawmakers pressed authors on whether the package actually would bring down premiums. Subcommittee chair Senator Johnson and other authors said the draft is intended to improve market conditions and increase carrier willingness to write liquor‑liability and other lines, but they repeatedly said there are no guarantees and that any premium effects would likely take time. - Scope and omnibus approach: Multiple senators urged narrowing the debate to narrower, targeted fixes for dram‑shop/liquor liability rather than a wide omnibus that also touches statute of repose, medical‑malpractice occurrences, and other areas. Several members said they favored working amendments that would preserve victim protections while addressing insurer market concerns.

Committee process and next steps: The bill's author reported multiple subcommittee hearings and extensive testimony from defense and plaintiff attorneys, insurance representatives and advocates, and the measure was brought by the judiciary subcommittee to the floor without subcommittee amendments. After extended floor discussion and questions spanning several hours, the Senate agreed to carry S.244 over; Senator Massey (Senator from Edgefield) signaled he would address joint‑and‑several issues in subsequent remarks. A motion to carry over the bill was made and agreed to on the floor; the Senate will reconvene and take up amendments and votes at a later time.

Quotes from the floor "It amends the joint and several liability statute, so that non parties are put on the verdict form," Senator Johnson (Senator from York) told the Senate when summarizing the measure's effect on fault allocation.

"There are no guarantees in this life," said Senator Garrett (Senator from Greenwood) in a floor exchange pushing authors for assurances that the bill would lower premiums.

What to watch next: The Senate will return to S.244 at a later date for amendments and votes. Key points to monitor are (1) whether the Senate adopts explicit notice or due‑process safeguards for putting non‑parties on verdict forms; (2) any targeted changes to dram‑shop/under‑21 provisions; and (3) whether amendments narrow the bill to a smaller set of reforms (for example, only liquor liability and server training). Stakeholders to watch include the Department of Insurance (Director Wise testified to the full committee), hospitality trade groups, MADD and victim advocates, and leading commercial carriers.

Ending: The debate made clear the chamber’s split: many senators said they want fixes to help small businesses and restore competition among insurers, while others said they would not trade away victim protections without precise, written safeguards. With the bill carried over, senators said they expect more floor debate and amendments before any final vote.