South Carolina Senate debate widens over tort, insurance changes in S.244

The South Carolina Senate spent a lengthy floor session debating S.244, a bill described by its sponsor as an overhaul of civil‑claims, tort and insurance rules intended to reduce liability exposure and slow rising premium costs.

Supporters, led on the floor by the senator from Edgefield, said the measure would make defendants pay only for the share of harm they caused, limit exposure to "empty chair" allocations to parties beyond the courtroom's reach, tighten several insurance‑practice rules and address repeated losses that they say have driven up premiums for restaurants, contractors and truckers.

Opponents, including senators from Williamsburg, Greenwood, Richland and Cherokee, warned the measure would shift losses to injured people, give insurers new ways to avoid payouts and create new administrative obstacles for plaintiffs. They raised particular concern about provisions that would (a) let juries allocate fault to non‑parties who were not before the court, (b) preserve the 51% threshold in comparative‑fault rules while removing joint‑and‑several liability, and (c) change when a claimant may pursue bad‑faith claims against an insurer.

Senator from Edgefield said the bill would correct what he described as an unfair burden that forces some defendants and small businesses to pay more than their pro rata share. "I should pay for what I cause. I should not pay for what someone else causes," he told colleagues during extended debate, and repeatedly framed the changes as restoring parity and reducing what supporters call a litigation premium embedded in insurance pricing.

Senators who opposed the substitution of joint‑and‑several liability pointed to a series of practical examples on the floor to explain their objections: construction defect scenarios, product‑liability cases where a foreign component manufacturer could not be reached, and major crash cases where a third party might be immune or subject to a different compensation system (for example, workers' compensation). Those senators said that allowing juries to list non‑parties on verdict forms — while leaving those non‑parties without counsel or even personal jurisdiction in South Carolina — risks stigmatizing companies and individuals whose names will appear in public documents without opportunity to defend themselves in the proceeding.

Several senators pressed the bill's sponsor on a handful of specific provisions that drew repeated attention: - Non‑party allocations on verdict forms. Opponents said the practice creates a public, written allocation of fault against entities that may not be subject to the court's jurisdiction and cannot present defenses. Supporters said the feature prevents plaintiffs and defendants from being forced to shoulder another's share of fault simply because the non‑party cannot be joined. - Bad‑faith timing. The draft gives insurers a grace period after a lawsuit is filed before a bad‑faith claim can proceed; the sponsor said the intent is to allow discovery and mediation, and he proposed a ten‑month window as a negotiating starting point. Critics said an extended statutory window risks strategic delay by insurers. - Dram‑shop and hospitality penalties. The bill would authorize administrative action by the Department of Revenue against a liquor license when a civil judgment finds a business overserved a patron who then caused injury. Some senators and hospitality representatives asked whether the provision would routinely punish businesses that had taken reasonable steps to prevent intoxicated patrons from driving. - Construction claims and the statute of repose. The bill would preserve an eight‑year repose but add standards for claims that surface after the repose where code violations or structural harm are alleged, a point that builders and contractors said would effectively extend exposure for decades without clear limits.

Senators repeatedly raised the Smith v. Tiffany decision (a South Carolina appellate decision debated during the session) and the interaction of rule 14 and rule 19 of the civil rules of procedure; those precedents and rules were central to several senators' legal arguments about whether non‑parties may be meaningfully addressed in a verdict allocation.

Multiple senators also framed the issue as an economic‑development problem: supporters argued litigation exposure and higher liability premiums harm the state's competitiveness and cited other states' reforms and subsequent insurance‑market reactions. Opponents said the empirical link between litigation reform and premium reductions is mixed and urged caution before changing longstanding civil rules that, they said, protect injured people.

No final floor vote on S.244 is recorded in the transcript. The sponsor repeatedly said he welcomed amendments and further negotiation and urged colleagues to continue discussions. Several senators signaled they would offer amendments or press for separate clarifying language before any final passage.

Membership organizations from multiple industries — contractors, trucking, restaurants and others — were reported by senators to have attended and urged action, while consumer and plaintiffs' attorney representatives were described as urging the opposite.

The debate continued late into the day and adjourned with no recorded final action on the bill; senators were reminded the schedule would resume the next day.

Votes at a glance: The transcript records multiple uncontested third readings earlier in the day's session — S.157, S.79, S.276 and several others — that were passed by voice vote on the uncontested calendar, and routine confirmations of county magistrates and a Richland County Master in Equity. The transcript does not show a final vote on S.244.