The Senate’s Lawsuit Reform Bill: Here’s What You Need to Know About S.244

After four weeks of heated debate, in the late hours of the night on March 26, the South Carolina Senate reached an agreement on S.244, the tort reform legislation that aims to make South Carolina’s civil liability system fairer, particularly in complex cases that involve multiple parties. 

Senate passage of the bill was a tremendous first step win for South Carolina citizens and businesses. If it can make its way to the Governor’s desk, we will see civil litigation operate much more fairly in our state, and no one who holds minimal fault in a tort claim will continue to be forced to pay damages larger than their share. On April 15, the senate amended the House’s limited liquor liability bill, H.3497, to match what the Senate passed in S.244 just weeks prior.

S.244 has undergone extensive amendment since its introduction at the beginning of the legislative session, so with adjournment looming, it is necessary now to recap the legislation’s journey to this point. 

The Journey So Far 

S.244 was crafted by Senators Shane Massey (R-Edgefield) and Michael Johnson (R-York), among others, as a response to the months of testimony collected by the Joint Insurance Review Study Committee, which met throughout the fall of 2024. The Committee, composed of House and Senate members and three members of the general public, was established in the 2024-25 state budget and tasked with examining the adequacy, equity, and efficiency of South Carolina’s civil justice and insurance laws. 

The Committee’s creation came after public outcry from business and industry, particularly those in the hospitality and restaurant trade, who pressed the General Assembly to address skyrocketing insurance rates that forced many long-standing institutions out of business.  

Civil justice concerns were not limited to restaurants serving alcohol, however; representatives from logging and trucking companies, retail stores, and healthcare all shared the frustration that insurance rates were too high. But the issue was broader. The Committee heard horror stories of how our civil liability system creates unnecessary risk for businesses and yields “nuclear” verdicts, particularly in asbestos and trucking litigation. Tort reform fell short in 2024, but many were confident that the Study Committee’s work would set up the General Assembly to succeed in 2025. 

After extensive testimony from all sides, the Committee released its Report to the General Assembly on January 7, 2025, with a catalog of proposed reforms. S.244 attempted to answer the concerns raised in the Study Committee, and throughout February 2025, the Senate Judiciary Committee held four subcommittee meetings and a full committee meeting to take testimony on the proposed bill, totaling over 14 hours of meetings and hearings. 

The Judiciary Committee sent S.244 to the Senate floor unamended so that all Senators would have the ability to engage in discussion, debate, and amendments. Thus, when the legislation was made a Special Order by the Senate on February 27, 2025, observers braced for a lengthy debate. But no one predicted an entire month’s consideration on the Senate floor. 

What Does S.244 Do? 

Because of the many amendments made to S.244 over those four weeks, and with the significant misinformation disseminated online, it is crucial that we examine what made it into the final version of the bill, which passed by a bipartisan vote of 35-7. 

Regarding Civil Suits with Multiple Parties: 

• In cases where no defendant is more than 50% at fault, damages would be divided proportionally between defendants (several liability). This removes the egregious legal loophole that in some cases had allowed a party with as little as 1% of fault being forced to pay up to 100% of the damages. 

• If the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault in the tort claim, a verdict will be returned in favor of the defendant.  

• In cases where one defendant’s fault exceeds 50%, then the defendant is held jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s economic damages. (This was an unfortunate compromise. Joint and Several Liability should have been fully purged from our civil justice statute so that every defendant pays their fair share and no more. The injustice remains: a party with 51% of the liability should not be forced to pay 100% of the damages!). 

• Defendants may choose whether to have other defendants involved in the case as setoffs (deducting what settling parties have paid from the total damages) as the current system allows, OR by choosing to have nonparties whose conduct contributed to the tort listed on the jury verdict form. This second option is new, and it means that defendants may choose for the jury to be aware of other parties who may have fault in a case, so that the jury may divide the liability (totaling 100%) between the plaintiff and all defendants listed on the verdict form. 

• If a new defendant is added to the jury verdict form, that defendant is allowed to defend or plead as a defendant in the case. 

• The empty chair defense, which allows defendants to argue liability for non-party defendants, is preserved. 

The legislation is comprehensive. What it means in practice is that in most cases defendants with less than 50% of liability will not be ordered to pay a dime over that amount in damages. It also means that the jury will be empowered to make informed decisions in cases where multiple parties are involved with no parties hidden.  

Regarding Liquor Liability: 

• The “alcohol exception” in South Carolina’s comparative negligence law—which allows a bar/restaurant to be liable for 100% of the damages in a tort where alcohol is involved—is gone. 

• The $1 million liability mandatory minimum insurance requirement is reduced to $500,000—this will be a significant change for businesses that are struggling to pay their insurance premiums. 

• There are clear limitations on when an alcohol licensee is civilly liable for damages—it is only when the person served is underage OR, if overage, visibly intoxicated at the time of sale. 

• Creates safer practices for establishments serving alcohol: It requires alcohol server training and creates administrative penalties/fines for violations such as overserving 

• “Late night” establishments must use forensic ID scanners. Additionally, other establishments with those scanners have an affirmative defense. 

• Requires the Department of Insurance to conduct annual reporting on the state of liquor liability insurance rates and coverage. 

Other Components:

• Prohibits “venue shopping” so that actions against unknown defendants must be tried in the county where the cause of action arose. 

• Allows seatbelt non-use to be admissible as evidence to mitigate damages, recognizing that if a passenger chooses not to wear a seatbelt, that is their own responsibility and fault in any incidents that occur. 

• Increases mandatory minimum auto insurance coverage requirements to place South Carolina on par with other states. 

What’s Not Included in S.244?

The “ten-month rule” that reduced the period in which an insurance claim could be filed. 

  A handout to big insurance.

A mere “band aid” to the liquor liability issue – this bill enacts real reform.

What’s Next: On to the House 

The fate of S.244, a truly comprehensive tort reform bill, now rests with the South Carolina House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the temptation for the House will be to rest on its passage of the much more limited H.3497, the liquor liability legislation it approved unanimously on March 6, 2025. We are glad to see the Senate amended that legislation to match what they passed in S.244; the House will have to take up the text addressing lawsuit reform with either piece of legislation.

The House is to be applauded for addressing the concerns of bars and entertainment venues. However, the injustice extends beyond liquor liability. The billboards are proof that our entire South Carolina civil justice system is broken. To stop the shakedown of South Carolina businesses and to ensure that the Palmetto State remains competitive with other states in our region that have addressed joint and several liability, the House should act more broadly and comprehensively and soon. 

For a deeper background on tort reform, you can visit our Palmetto Freedom Agenda resource page on lawsuit reform.