The South Carolina Senate passed a bill late Wednesday night aimed at overhauling personal injury lawsuit and insurance rules to lower insurance rates for businesses.
After four weeks of contentious debate, the bill passed with a 35-7 vote, following a 2½-hour recess where senators negotiated the final details.
The bill was supported by all Senate Republicans, with three Democrats joining in favor, while all seven "no" votes came from Democrats.
A source with knowledge of the legislative effort provided insight into the behind-the-scenes dynamics, revealing how the final moments unfolded, highlighting the intense negotiations among lawmakers.
“They took a 30-minute recess that turned into a two-and-a-half-hour recess and came back on, wham bam, thank you ma’am—there was a deal, there was compromise,” the source explained.
S.244, which aimed to overhaul personal injury lawsuit and insurance rules, had been the subject of weeks of debate, with factions within the GOP clashing over the details.
Among the key figures in the debate was Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey (R-Edgefield) – the bill’s sponsor – who, along with Gov. Henry McMaster, sought comprehensive tort reform.
Opposing Massey was State Sen. Stephen Goldfinch (R-Murrells Inlet), an attorney, who aligned with the state’s trial bar.
Seen as a potential broker for compromise was State Sen. Michael Johnson (R-York).
The diverse group of lawmakers, once at odds, are said to have ultimately found common ground during the extended recess prior to the final vote.
“Irony of ironies, Johnson, Goldfinch, and Massey all ended up at the same table,” the source said.
Tort reform in the state was initially introduced as a solution to a growing issue: five years ago, 40 companies offered liquor liability policies in South Carolina, but today, only two remain. This reduction in competition has led to skyrocketing insurance rates, forcing some local businesses to close their doors.
While the South Carolina House had already passed a bill addressing liquor liability alone, Massey pursued broader tort reform, sparking opposition from trial lawyers who claim the bill favors big insurance and could lead to higher rates and denied claims.
A key issue in the original bill involved changes to the legal principle of joint and several liability, where a single defendant can be held responsible for the full amount of damages, even if they are only partially at fault. Changes to joint and several liability were strongly opposed by Goldfinch and the trial attorney lobby.
While Massey’s bill passed, it was a watered-down version.
“It feels like Johnson was pretty successful...that Goldfinch is not happy, but not sad...and that Massey is disappointed,” the source said.
The newly amended legislation changes the way damages are assigned in personal injury cases by requiring businesses to pay only for their share of the damages, unless they are found to be more than 50% at fault.
Under the revised version of S.244, businesses with less than half of the responsibility would be liable only for their proportional share of economic damages, such as medical expenses and property damage. However, if a business is determined to be over 50% responsible, it could be held fully accountable for economic damages.
The bill also reduces insurance requirements for bars and restaurants serving alcohol, cutting the minimum coverage from $1 million to $500,000. In response to rising insurance costs since a 2017 law, restaurant owners praised the change.
The bill also addressed lawsuits related to asbestos and "forever chemicals" in water, allowing pending cases to bypass the new rules if filed before the law takes effect.
The source noted that some of the original bill’s proponents have characterized the compromise as “actually worse than the status quo.”
Among the original bill’s backers were powerful business groups, including the South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance and the Truckers Association.
Massey had been pushing for tort reform that would further limit business liability in injury lawsuits. He faced stiff opposition from the trial lawyer lobby, who launched an aggressive campaign against the bill. Their efforts, including Facebook ads, text message campaigns, and digital billboards, claimed the proposal benefited "big insurance" and threatened rate increases and the denial of claims.
An expected vote on Thursday will send the bill to the House for consideration.