Table of Contents

Sen. Shane Massey: Does His Insurance Bill Shield Insurers or Hurt South Carolina Citizens? You Decide.

By James Seidel, Crime and Cask News Network

COLUMBIA, S.C. – A newly proposed amendment to South Carolina’s insurance law is drawing scrutiny, with critics arguing it prioritizes insurance companies over South Carolina citizens. While lawmakers claim the bill aims to reduce frivolous lawsuits and stabilize insurance costs, evidence suggests it benefits the insurance industry and legal defense teams while limiting protections for everyday drivers.

Understanding the Legislation

The proposed amendment to Section 38-59-23 of the S.C. Code restructures deadlines for when insurers must pay out claims in liability, underinsured motorist, and uninsured motorist cases. Key provisions include:

Insurers have 90 days to pay policy limits if a claim is made before a lawsuit is filed.
If a lawsuit has been filed, the insurer has up to 10 months from the filing date or 30 days after receiving notice of the demand—whichever comes later.
Multiple claimants? Insurers can issue a global settlement offer within 90 days, shielding them from bad faith lawsuits.

These provisions significantly restrict when insurers can be sued for bad faith, making it harder for South Carolinians to challenge delayed or inadequate payouts.

Who Proposed This and Why?

The bill, sponsored by Senator Shane Massey, was introduced in South Carolina’s 2025-2026 legislative session. Massey, a Republican representing District 25, is a practicing attorney specializing in civil litigation, insurance defense, and products liability—a background that raises ethical concerns about self-interest in shaping laws that directly benefit his profession.

How Massey Personally Benefits from His Own Bill

Massey’s legal practice focuses on defending insurance companies and corporations from lawsuits, including those related to personal injury claims, bad faith litigation, and liability disputes. The proposed restrictions on bad faith lawsuits would directly help insurance defense attorneys like Massey by:

Reducing insurers’ exposure to large jury verdicts for delayed or denied claims.
Limiting the ability of injured claimants to sue for punitive damages under uninsured and underinsured motorist policies.
Increasing legal business for firms specializing in insurance defense, as the law makes it harder for injured drivers to negotiate fair settlements without prolonged litigation.

Mr. Anthony Shane Massey, Attorney at Law

Key Provisions of the Amendments

Uninsured Motorist Coverage (Section 38-77-150)

Requires insurers to provide coverage only for compensatory damages (medical expenses, lost wages) and excludes punitive damages.
The policy must provide at least $25,000 per accident.
Allows the first $200 of property damage to be excluded from coverage.

Underinsured Motorist Coverage (Section 38-77-160)

Insurers must offer underinsured motorist coverage up to the insured’s liability limits.
Coverage extends only to compensatory damages—punitive damages are not covered.
If an insured has excess underinsured coverage, it only applies to the specific vehicle involved in the accident.
Insurers are given 30 days to respond when notified of a lawsuit related to underinsured claims.
If an at-fault driver’s insurer settles within policy limits, the underinsured motorist insurer can take over the defense.

Who Benefits and Who Loses?

Winners:

Insurance Companies: Gain legal protections from lawsuits, reducing payouts and delays in settlements.
Defense Attorneys (Including Massey’s Legal Field): Benefit from an increase in cases where claimants must fight longer for fair compensation.

Losers:

South Carolina Citizens: Limited ability to sue for bad faith delays or denied claims.
Accident Victims: Must wait longer for compensation and may need to personally sue at-fault drivers to recover punitive damages.
Personal Injury Attorneys Representing Victims: Weakened legal tools to hold insurers accountable.

How to Lower Insurance Costs Without Hurting Consumers

Instead of gutting consumer protections, lawmakers should focus on reforms that actually lower costs while protecting South Carolinians:

Increase oversight of rate hikes: Require insurers to justify premium increases before an independent commission.
Strengthen bad faith penalties: Instead of restricting lawsuits, impose automatic financial penalties for insurers that delay or underpay valid claims.
Encourage competition: Open the South Carolina insurance market to more providers, increasing competition to drive down rates.
Crack down on fraud: Address staged accidents and fraudulent claims, which insurers blame for rising costs.

Final Verdict: A Conflict of Interest?

This bill is not designed to protect South Carolina drivers—it is designed to protect insurance companies and defense attorneys like Senator Massey. Instead of addressing real concerns like high premiums and delayed payouts, it shields insurers from accountability, leaving consumers with fewer options for justice.

If lawmakers are serious about lowering insurance costs, they should focus on transparency, competition, and holding bad actors accountable—not giving more power to insurers at the expense of everyday South Carolinians.

Stay tuned to Crime and Cask News Network for continued coverage on this evolving issue.