Tort Reform Bill Dropping Today
A group of South Carolina lawmakers will file comprehensive tort reform legislation today aimed at protecting jobs in the Palmetto State and improving a legal climate that has steadily deteriorated as our state’s Supreme Court has veered further to the left.
South Carolina lawmakers approved a new tort reform package three years ago, but the Court has issued numerous anti-business rulings – such as Colleton Prep Academy v. Hoover Universal, for example – that have negated the gains of the earlier reforms.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, South Carolina currently ranks 43rd in the nation for the fairness of its litigation environment – which is obviously a major disincentive to jobs and investment.
“Right now the only thing that matters is jobs,” said Sen. Mick Mulvaney (R-Lancaster/York), a co-sponsor of the legislation. “And to the extent our tort rules are preventing business and job growth, they have to change. Period. End of story. And that same analysis needs to be applied to our tax system and our regulatory system, too. If something is hampering job growth in South Carolina, it must be changed.”
The reform package being proposed includes numerous job retention provisions, including several designed to correct flawed Supreme Court rulings.
“A state’s judicial system is key to maintaining predictability in its legal climate and economic environment,” Dan Pero of the American Justice Partnership said in a speech last month. “Judges who change the rules are a real, consistent and growing threat to our justice system and to a state’s economic climate.”
Opponents of tort reform – i.e. lawyers – will likely contest the bill saying that there is no link between tort reform and job creation.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour would probably disagree with that, as his state missed out on not one, but two, major automotive plants three years ago – in large part because it ranked dead last in the country in legal fairness.
Nationwide, small businesses pay an estimated $20 billion a year due to our out-of-control legal system, part of $261 billion drain on our national economy.
Comments
By Red Bank Bar on January 29th, 2009 at 5:45 am
My, my, pimpin’ for the US Chamber of Commerce by publishing their press releases. Y’all are lazy.
And stupid, too.
Go to http://www.factcheck.org Your figures are bogus. The author of the $261 billion” study says the Chamber is lying and misrepresenting his study of the costs of ALL lawsuits in the US during 2005.
My aunt sued the drunk driver who killed my cousin because State Farm wouldn’t pay $50,000 for her life. That’s what the Chamber of Commerce says is the out of control legal system.
Tort filings in South Carolina have gone steadily down for the last ten years.
But facts never were yours or Senator Mick’s strength.
Y’all need to get Mande back writing her drivel. It’s better than this fact-free propaganda.
By Cadetsuperintendent on January 29th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Obviously a payoff for business support during Mulvaney’s
Senate run. What a corrupt jerk.
By lou on January 29th, 2009 at 9:09 am
It’s time some entity looked after WE THE PEOPLE
By Read the opinion on January 29th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26535
By question? on January 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Having read the Colleton Prep Academy v. Hoover Universal opinion, it appears that a South Carolina entity (Colleton Prep) sued a Michigan company (Hoover) for damages and recovered. If the court had ruled the other way, as asserted by FITS it should have, it would have shielded a Michigan company for damages it inflicted upon a South Carolina company. Can someone explain how would ruling against the injured SC party have served to attract business to SC? If our South Carolina ccompany had been denied recovery, would that not serve to scare business away from SC?
By Mande Wilkes on January 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Red Bank -
You miss me…
Everything really is relative, isn’t it?
By medstudent on January 29th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Great question? I’d like to hear an answer from FITS.
The Tort Reform Act that the S.C. legislature passed back in 2004 or 2005 capped medical malpractice rewards to $250,000 per entity. So, $250,00 from the physician and $250,000 from the hospital was the MAX a petitioner could receive if he won. That reform was advocated by insurance companies and doctors in that it would drive down insurance premiums for doctors and lower health care costs.
I am currently a medical student at MUSC, so this issue affects me. A recent study showed that since the passage of that Tort Reform Act, doctors’ malpractice insurance premiums in S.C. have GONE UP. Explain that.
Insurance companies use tort reform to reap the benefits without providing the service everday Americans pay to receive.
By Red Bank Bar on January 29th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
By question?: I’m surprised at you. Don’t you know this is not about facts, this is about ideology. You can’t confuse Folks with the facts, he knows none.
He has his talking points he’s been given so go away. This is all about shielding bidness from taking responsiblity for their actions. If you’re a Repugnant Party corporate backer, you can do anything and they’ll try to get you immunity for any wrong-doing. And while they’re at it, they want bigger profits for their insurance company backers so back-off little guy, bidness is coming and can’t be held accountable.
By fitsnews on January 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
First of all, Red Bank, the ruling isn’t about a Michigan company getting sued by a SC school, it’s about the Court unilaterally adding a broad exception to the economic loss rule, thus creating a legal duty in tort for manufacturers even in such instances when a product does not cause bodily harm.
Also, trial attorneys are driving Mack trucks through Court-created loopholes in our Statute of Repose, to say nothing of the corporate veil in SC, which is about as easily compromised as Paris Hilton’s panties, assuming she’s even wearing any.
ALL OF THAT HARMS OUR COMPETITIVENESS AS A STATE.
And frankly, it’s pretty effin’ amazing that you guys will jump down our throats over this article while numerous S.C. lawyer-legislators rake in MILLIONS from workers’ comp cases that they write the laws for (and get to argue in front of judges they appoint).
Again, THAT HARMS OUR COMPETITIVENESS AS A STATE.
In other words, don’t come to us with “we don’t know facts” and “talking points” because we will have to school you like this again.
-FITS
P.S. – Senator Mick is smarter than you, too.
By T-Bow on January 29th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Interesting that the “party of personal responsibility” will go to such lengths to limit it’s responsibility to those that it injures or damages.
By Um, no on January 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
“Trial attorneys are driving Mack trucks through Court-created loopholes in our Statute of Repose, to say nothing of the corporate veil in SC, which is about as easily compromised….”
Do you have any idea even what a statute of repose or corporate veil is? I doubt it, but even if so, you have zero support for your sentence. Zippo. Because there is none.
How often do you think the statute of repose gets raised in litigation? And how often does the corporate veil get pierced? Do a search. Almost never on both counts. They’re just not commonly litigated issues. I know, because I’m one the the few that has litigated a corporate veil case in recent years.
You just make this stuff up.
By fitsnews on January 29th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
“Um, no,”
A statute of repose differs depending on which area of law you are discussing, but it generally refers to a statute outlining a timetable by which certain claims/ rights must be acted upon before they expire.
A “corporate veil” refers to a method of getting at assets from individual shareholders beyond those invested in the entity being sued, i.e. it’s a way for lawyers like you to win even fatter judgments by suing people far beyond their presumed liability.
Again, these reforms are very simply about protecting businesses from excessive insurance costs, which enables them to spend more money hiring people (or in this economic climate, keeping people employed), but by all means keep accusing us of “making stuff up.”
We get that a lot, and somehow we always end up being right.
-FITS
By cd on January 29th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I didn’t know that this many ambulance chasers read FITS.
By Red Bank Bar on January 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Folks, anyone can copy a dictionary entry. You were challenged directly to defend the bogus Chamber of Commerce figures as exposed in http://www.factcheck.org
You were challenged to provide the name of even one case to illustrate your statute of repose and corporate veil nonsense. You fail again because you have no ideas and no facts to back up your talking points. Thanks for playing and try again Folks when you have a set.
By fitsnews on January 30th, 2009 at 12:22 am
RBB,
The stats we referenced were from a speech by the head of the American Justice Partnership. If you’ve got a problem with those stats, we suggest you take it up with them.
As for case law, if there were no applicable rulings involving these issues, then what’s the harm in changing the law?
Seriously, if statute of repose and corporate veil issues are not relevant in SC, then why do you have a problem with reforms that address them?
Dude, in so over-zealously looking for something to nit-pick in this article, you’ve ended up making our point for us.
But you want more facts, so okay …
According to the American Association for Tort Reform, the cost of the U.S. tort system in 2003 was $246 billion, and its growth has been 2-3% higher than GDP over the past 50 years. Do you also dispute these stats?
In Texas, a 2008 report by nationally recognized economist Ray Perryman showed that lawsuit reforms enacted there in 1995 have resulted in $112.5 billion in additional capital investment, half a million new, permanent jobs and a $2.6 billion increase in state tax revenue. Do you also dispute these stats?
Oh … and what’s the Lone Star state’s unemployment rate? It’s 6 percent – or 3.5% lower than the SC unemployment rate.
Also, if this was such a horrible idea, why are dozens of other states pushing it, like Georgia – where Gov. Perdue is advancing a proposal specifically aimed at protecting emerging biotech firms from frivolous lawsuits? Or Oregon, which is also looking to correct anti-business court rulings with its new tort reform package?
Seriously, dude. Even Barack Obama has been a consistent tort reform supporter in spite of his overall far left record.
And for the record, if you’d like to divulge your name and provide a time and place for a public, videotaped debate on tort reform issues between you and Sic Willie, then by all means name it.
He will not only see you there, but happily wipe the floor with your smug, lawyer ass.
Rhetorically, at least. :)
-FITS
By Um,no on January 30th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Ah, ex post facto search engines. Next time you Google the concepts, make sure you can at least distinguish a statute of repose from a statute of limitations.
“Seriously, if statute of repose and corporate veil issues are not relevant in SC, then why do you have a problem with reforms that address them?”
I was simply pointing out that, as usual, you don’t really have a clue what you’re talking about when it comes to legal issues. Your client Mulvaney says “jump” and you say “how high.” (Tangential PS: Do you know anything about those fake gay rights group robocalls that got him elected? Somehow I’m thinking there won’t be an affidavit from you on that one.)
The damages cap is obviously what this “tort reform” is all about. The last damages cap, applicable to malpractice claims, was pushed on the false argument that premiums would come down. They went up anyway, as those who opposed the cap predicted they would.
This blog continues to be a fact-free zone.
By cadetsuperintendent on January 30th, 2009 at 11:13 am
FITS,
List for me the 10 most egregious punitive damages awards by
SC juries in the last five years that had a direct impact on
keeping new business away from the state. I’ll use that list
to show those lawyers a thing or two. I assume you have that
handy so post it by 5 p.m. today so that I can show it to my
lawyer friends over the weekend. Thanks in advance.
By Give Me A Break! on January 30th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
What do trial lawyers know about economic development?
Their business model is to file predatory lawsuits against the very businesses we are trying to recruit to locate in South Carolina.
By Crooner on February 4th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Wouldn’t it be nice if businesses could put a cap on the amount of harm they cause individuals rather than just capping the amount they have to pay for that harm, however great it is?
By Give Me A Break! on February 6th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if trial lawyers did not take between 40%-50% of the injured parties awards?
Trackbacks