Tort Reform
S.244: South Carolina’s Tort Reform Bill—Who Wins, Who Loses, and What It Means for Residents
By James Seidel | CC News Network
COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina lawmakers are pushing forward with Senate Bill 244 (S.244), a sweeping tort reform measure that could significantly impact legal disputes across the state. While proponents argue the bill will curb frivolous lawsuits and create a fairer legal system, critics warn it may shield corporations and insurance companies at the expense of individuals seeking justice.
With homeowners, business owners, consumers, and insurers all watching closely, CC News Network examines who benefits, who loses, and how the bill could reshape civil litigation in South Carolina.
What’s in the Bill?
S.244 makes broad changes to South Carolina’s civil liability laws, focusing on comparative fault, lawsuit limitations, and liability insurance. Key provisions include:
- Comparative Fault Restrictions: Plaintiffs cannot recover damages if they are found more than 50% at fault for their own injuries or damages. This applies to personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage cases.
- Limitations on Lawsuits Against Insurance Companies: The bill makes it harder to sue insurers for bad faith practices and extends the time insurance companies have to respond to claims.
- Dram Shop & Liquor Liability Expansion: Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons can be held civilly liable if that individual later causes injury or damage. The bill mandates liquor liability insurance and allows the state to suspend liquor licenses if businesses exceed policy limits before their coverage term expires.
- Caps on Punitive Damages in Insurance Disputes: Uninsured and underinsured motorist policies are no longer required to cover punitive damages, which could limit compensation for victims in hit-and-run accidents or drunk driving crashes.
- New Burdens for Claimants in Civil Cases: Individuals seeking damages must identify and prove fault of all parties involved, including third parties who may not even be named in the lawsuit.
Who Benefits from S.244?
- Insurance Companies: The bill provides greater protections against lawsuits, limiting the ability of individuals to sue for delayed or denied claims. The 90-day pre-lawsuit waiting period and extended response time for lawsuits give insurers more control over the legal process.
- Businesses Facing Personal Injury Lawsuits: Restaurants, bars, and other businesses can better defend themselves against liability claims, as plaintiffs will need stronger evidence to prove they are responsible for damages.
- Defendants in Civil Cases: Those facing lawsuits for injuries, property damage, or economic losses can now shift blame onto third parties—including those not named in the lawsuit—making it harder for plaintiffs to win full compensation.
- Licensed Alcohol Vendors: Establishments serving alcohol receive clearer liability rules under the new dram shop provisions, ensuring they are only held responsible in specific cases of over-serving intoxicated patrons.
Who Loses Under S.244?
- Homeowners and Policyholders: While the bill does not directly target homeowners’ insurance, its stronger protections for insurance companies mean longer wait times for claim approvals and settlements.
- Accident Victims & Personal Injury Plaintiffs: Victims of car crashes, workplace accidents, or medical malpractice will have a harder time recovering damages due to the comparative fault rule, which blocks claims if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.
- Hit-and-Run & Drunk Driving Victims: The removal of punitive damages from uninsured/underinsured motorist policies could reduce financial relief for victims in serious accidents.
- Small Businesses Without Strong Legal Teams: While large corporations can better defend themselves, small businesses may struggle with liquor liability insurance mandates and stricter regulations on alcohol service.
South Carolina homeowners are against S.244. Don’t take my word for it, listen to the representative of hundreds of SC homeowners and community associations, and millions of SC homeowners: pic.twitter.com/VTOVbx1pw0
— Dave Marshall (@dcm1142) February 13, 2025
Impact on South Carolinians
- Increased Insurance Protections: Insurers will have greater leverage to delay or deny claims without the threat of immediate lawsuits.
- Potential Delays in Civil Justice: Plaintiffs in personal injury and property damage cases may wait longer for resolutions, as insurance companies use extended response times to challenge claims.
- Stronger Liquor Lawsuits: While businesses face stricter alcohol service rules, victims of alcohol-related incidents will have clearer paths to seek compensation.
There are several possible reasons why the South Carolina Senate might push a bill that benefits insurance companies while putting residents at a disadvantage. Here’s a breakdown of the political and economic factors at play:
1. Influence of Insurance Industry Lobbying
Insurance companies are some of the most powerful lobbying forces in state and federal politics. They donate heavily to political campaigns, fund political action committees (PACs), and engage in behind-the-scenes negotiations with lawmakers to craft favorable legislation.
- South Carolina’s Campaign Contributions: In 2023, South Carolina reportedly raised more campaign contributions for insurance-related lobbying than any other state, with $126,865 donated by industry groups.
- Senator Shane Massey and Other Sponsors: Many of the bill’s sponsors, including Sen. Shane Massey, have legal backgrounds in insurance defense and civil litigation, meaning their firms and clientele have a direct stake in limiting lawsuits.
2. Reducing Liability for Corporations
Large businesses and insurance companies benefit from laws that restrict lawsuits because:
- Lower payouts: If insurance companies are not required to cover punitive damages or have liability limits, they save money.
- Discouraging lawsuits: If individuals know they have limited recovery options, they may not file lawsuits at all, allowing negligent businesses or insurers to avoid legal accountability.
- Shielding bad actors: Corporations and insurers that engage in wrongful practices (denying claims, raising rates, or delaying settlements) face fewer consequences.
3. The “Tort Reform” Argument: Lowering Costs for Businesses
Proponents of S.244 argue that tort reform reduces excessive litigation, prevents frivolous lawsuits, and ultimately lowers the cost of doing business. This argument is often made by:
- Business groups that claim high insurance costs drive companies out of South Carolina.
- Insurance companies that suggest lowering liability costs will reduce premiums for policyholders.
However, history shows that insurance companies rarely lower rates after winning tort reform—they simply increase their profits while reducing payouts.
4. The Political Climate: A Pro-Business Legislature
South Carolina’s government has long been business-friendly, prioritizing policies that attract corporations rather than protect consumers. Legislators may believe that shielding companies from lawsuits will create a more attractive business environment, even if it comes at the expense of residents who need fair legal protections.
5. The Impact on South Carolina Residents
The bill creates serious disadvantages for ordinary South Carolinians:
- Homeowners & Drivers: The bill weakens uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and limits liability for property damage. Homeowners could face higher premiums and reduced insurance coverage without clear legal recourse.
- Victims of Negligence: If an individual is injured due to corporate negligence or reckless behavior, they may be unable to recover full damages, especially punitive damages.
- Consumers Fighting Insurance Companies: Insurance bad faith lawsuits would become much harder to win, even when companies wrongfully deny claims.
Comparing to Neighboring States: How Does SC Compare?
To understand the potential consequences, let’s examine how North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee handle similar laws:
-
Contributory Negligence Rule: North Carolina is one of the few states that follows pure contributory negligence, meaning if a plaintiff is found even 1% at fault for their own injury, they cannot recover any damages from the defendant. This is much stricter than comparative negligence rules.
-
North Carolina limits punitive damages to three times the amount of compensatory damages or $250,000—whichever is greater. However, this cap does not apply to cases involving impaired driving (DUI cases).
-
Georgia allows full punitive damages in cases of fraud, intentional harm, or product liability. The state does not cap economic or non-economic damages, as previous caps on medical malpractice cases were struck down as unconstitutional in 2010. However, punitive damages in most cases (excluding intentional harm, fraud, product liability, or DUI cases) are capped at $250,000.
Tennessee:
Tennessee imposes a $750,000 cap on non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering) in most personal injury cases and a $500,000 cap in medical malpractice cases involving catastrophic injuries. While Tennessee allows bad faith claims against insurers, it has strict limitations on punitive damages in such cases, making them more challenging to win compared to other states.
Compared to its neighbors, South Carolina’s S.244 is a drastic shift toward favoring insurers at the expense of injured individuals.
Who Wins?
✅ Insurance Companies – More profits, fewer lawsuits, and reduced liability. ✅ Big Businesses – Less exposure to expensive lawsuits, especially in alcohol-related injury claims. ✅ Defense Attorneys – Fewer cases where plaintiffs can seek large payouts.
Who Loses?
❌ South Carolina Homeowners & Drivers – Higher premiums, weaker insurance protections. ❌ Victims of Negligence & Drunk Driving – Reduced ability to sue and recover damages. ❌ Small Business Owners – Could be left vulnerable if insurance providers fail to pay claims. ❌ Everyday Citizens – Limited access to fair compensation when harmed.
The Bottom Line
South Carolina lawmakers are pushing S.244 under the guise of “tort reform,” but in reality, it is a massive win for insurance companies and big businesses at the expense of citizens who need consumer protections. If passed, it could set a precedent for other anti-consumer policies, making it harder for residents to seek justice when wronged.
For now, South Carolinians should ask why their legislators are prioritizing corporate profits over public protection.
Final Analysis
S.244 represents a major shift in South Carolina’s legal system, tilting power toward insurers, corporations, and defendants while raising hurdles for accident victims, policyholders, and individuals filing lawsuits. While lawmakers argue the bill prevents lawsuit abuse and strengthens liability protections, opponents say it erodes consumer rights and shields powerful interests.
As the bill moves through the South Carolina Legislature, residents should stay informed on how these legal changes could affect their rights, their businesses, and their ability to seek justice.
CC News Network will continue to monitor developments on S.244 and its potential impact on South Carolinians.
Connect with CC News Network
Over 1,500,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!
Join Our 100,000+ Social Media Fans:
- Follow Us on X: @CCNewsNetwork
- Follow Us on TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
- Facebook: CC News Network
- Talk Radio: 97.7FM WVFF – Listen to Our Hit True Crime Talk Radio Show
- Follow Us on Amazon Books: Click here to follow
- Hire Us on Cameo: @CC News Network
- Follow Us on Spotify: @CC Records
- Follow Us on Bluesky: @ccnewsnetwork.bsky.social
- Follow Us on Mastadon: @CrimeandCask
- New Book Development: J6’r Autobiography
Do you mind telling us why your “new reporting” is so slanted?
You stated that big insurance companies in large corporations are the ones who will benefit from South Carolina Bill S244.
We happen to live in the state and we know mini mini small business owners who are closing their doors because of the way the 2019 light structured.
The structure of the 2019 law is grossly unfair to any business, no matter what size, when it comes to liability for drunk driver accidents.
The way the last stands now, the personal injury attorneys, who you seem to be backing, can legally sue a business that served maybe one alcoholic drink to a drunk driver, even if the investigation finds that the establishment only has one percent of actual fault in the case, 100% liability can be transferred to that establishment.
It seems you forgot to say that in your article.
The 2019 light also demands that any business, restaurant, bar, event or music venue, that serves alcohol must carry at least $1 million in liquor liability insurance, even if the establishment has never, ever had a liquor liability, claim filed against it.
Because of this requirement, insurance companies have imposed such exorbitant premiums on small businesses, that many of them are closing their doors. Three that I know, personally, and I’m not in the business, myself. Wane told me yesterday that he’s going to be closing his doors next week after being in business for 20 years.
Bill S .2446 to reverse this unfair practice.
Please inform the citizens of South Carolina, the truth, the whole truth, please.
Thank you for your thoughtful response and for raising critical points about how the 2019 liquor liability law has impacted small businesses in South Carolina. Your concerns about the insurance burdens placed on businesses, the transfer of 100% liability despite minimal fault, and the rising cost of liquor liability insurance forcing closures are absolutely valid. These are real issues that many small business owners are facing, and they deserve attention.
Our article on S.244 does not dispute that the 2019 law has had serious negative consequences for small businesses. In fact, we acknowledge that the bill’s dram shop provisions add financial and legal burdens on establishments that serve alcohol, which is why some legislators argue that S.244 is necessary to correct those imbalances.
However, the core issue we raised in our analysis is who stands to benefit the most from S.244. While S.244 does attempt to ease the burden on small businesses, it heavily tilts protections in favor of insurance companies and large corporate entities that have the resources to navigate legal challenges. By shifting blame away from businesses and limiting liability, the bill is not necessarily designed to help small businesses but rather to protect insurers and larger establishments from financial exposure.
Key Points to Address Your Concerns:
✅ Yes, small businesses are struggling under the current law. Many bars, restaurants, and event venues are being crushed by high liquor liability premiums, and some have been forced to close their doors.
✅ Yes, the 2019 law has made it far too easy for personal injury attorneys to shift full liability onto a business, even if it only played a minor role. Holding a bar 100% responsible when they only served one drink to a patron who later caused a crash is an unfair application of liability laws.
✅ Yes, S.244 attempts to roll back some of those burdens. The bill clarifies liability standards and gives businesses a better chance to defend themselves in court.
However, here’s the catch: The way S.244 is structured primarily benefits insurance companies, not necessarily small businesses. It limits legal accountability across the board—which means that while small businesses may see some relief, large corporations and insurers gain far more protection from lawsuits than the small bar owner struggling to pay their premiums.
What Wasn’t Included in Our Original Article:
You’re absolutely right that we should have emphasized the direct impact of the 2019 law on small businesses more clearly. The hardship that local business owners are facing should be front and center in this debate. While S.244 may alleviate some of those burdens, it does so at the cost of limiting legal options for victims and policyholders.
CC News Network remains committed to reporting all sides of this issue, and we appreciate readers like you who push for a more comprehensive discussion. We will continue investigating the real-world impact of both the 2019 law and S.244 and will update our coverage to reflect the perspectives of small business owners who are directly affected.
Your insights are invaluable to ensuring this debate is presented fairly. Thank you for holding us accountable and contributing to an informed conversation.
. : :
5,400 businesses have shut down due to our broken liability system.
SC citizens are shelling out over $300/month just to cover tort/lawsuit costs-$7.5 billion last year!