By FITSNews || A month after the S.C. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a comprehensive tort reform bill, its companion legislation is languishing in a Senate subcommittee that’s stacked with wealthy trial lawyers.
In fact, the Senate subcommittee that was scheduled to take up tort reform this week has once again decided to delay action on the issue.
On March 3, at the behest of S.C. Commerce Secretary Joe Taylor, the House passed its version of tort reform – which included a cap on punitive damages - by a whopping 104-9 vote. Even Rep. Greg Delleney, who is one of the General Assembly’s wealthiest lawyer-legislators, supported the legislation – as did decisive majorities of the Republican, Democratic and Black caucuses.
South Carolina has one of the worst legal climates in America, which contributes to our state consistently ranking among the least “business-friendly” states in the nation. In a pair of letters sent to lawmakers earlier this year, Taylor said that “protecting businesses from frivolous lawsuits” and “bringing common sense back to our courtrooms” were essential ingredients in improving South Carolina’s business climate.
“Continuing work on tort reform and workers’ comp reform is critical to successful industry recruitment in the future and even more important to the health and competitiveness of our own in-state businesses,” Taylor told FITS at the time.
Apparently, the Senate doesn’t consider tort reform “critical,” though, because it has sat on the issue for over a month.
Why the delay?
Well, the Senate subcommittee includes three of the legislature’s most notorious trial lawyers – Senators Brad Hutto, Gerald Malloy and Luke Rankin – each of whom rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars each year by maintaining the state’s anti-competitive tort and workers’ compensation laws. Hutto and Rankin, in particular, have shown a willingness to bend state ethics law to the breaking point in order to protect their bottom line.
With so many trial lawyers pulling the strings behind the scenes, it’s no surprise that the entire tort debate up to this point has been rigged … and bogged down.
Fortunately, the Judiciary subcommittee also includes three Republican Senators who have supported tort reform in the past – Lee Bright, Chip Campsen and Tom Davis. Also, the subcommittee’s chairman, Sen. Larry Martin, is the lead sponsor of this year’s tort reform bill.
Needless to say, we’ll be watching this legislation very closely.
If the Senate is serious about job creation, then it needs to get moving on this bill …
However, if all the Senate wants to do is continue paying lip service to job creation, then by all means it should keep permitting these three trial lawyers to block reform while premiums on small businesses continue to rise.
WEB EXTRA
Senate Tort Reform Bill
By Concerned Citizen April 13, 2010 at 12:27 pm
In a recession, the most important issue is job creation. Why are the other senators allowing these trial lawyers to block this bill?
By Small Businessman April 13, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Senators, do your job and vote on this bill.
South Carolina needs to adopt more business-friendly policies including protecting small businesses from lawsuit abuse.
Focus on creating jobs and quit protecting trial lawyers!
By Just Say No to TV Lawyers April 13, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Please pass a tort reform bill so strong that TV Lawyers cannot afford to advertise anymore!!!
By Guero April 13, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Can y’all name just one frivolous law suit filed in South Carolina?
It seems like Republicans are actually worried about meritorious law suits. Drug addicted and incompentent doctors, Toyota, insurance companies for drunk drivers, corporate polluters, et al, are the people backing tort reform.
The SC Department of Commerce’s annual report at the same time as the last round of tort reform denied that law suits had any effect on the recruitment of industry. Ole Joe better go scrub his official records.
Can y’all tell us one industry that went elsewhere because of our law suit “climate”? I didn’t think so.
So far, all I’ve seen from y’all is talking points and no substance.
By Ynotfirst April 13, 2010 at 1:07 pm
tort reform will not accomplish one thing for this state. it’s extremely difficult to locate and retain competent legal assistance for REAL problems. anyone can get a car wreck lawyer but let a big issue come up and you are sh*t out of luck, money or not.
why waste more state time and money on something as stupid as tort reform?
answer: it keeps the ” little man” in check.
By Lawsuits are BAD for business April 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Guero,
Good try but I can tell you are not a businessman.
Only a trial lawyer would argue that lawsuits are good for business.
Lawsuits hurt small businesses and job creation.
By Jack April 13, 2010 at 6:54 pm
I am a small businessman, and tort reform is a red herring. It will do nothing for this state. It is designed to benefit a very few large corporate interests all of which are already here and are not going to leave because of our tort law system. Its just another lets benefit a major donor legislation. Tort reform can indeed hurt a small business. If you are screwed by a large business and you can’t afford to sue, you lose. I have had to deal with that situation in the past and believe me, the goal of the insurance industry is to be able to bury anyone who sues them in cost and paper, so that they can make suing a no win situation for you no matter what happened to you.
SC has one of the worst legal climates in the nation?? Give me a break. Just more made up non-quantifiable nonsense, people on this site love to use.
Tort reform supporters have a very simple definition of a frivolous law suit. “One that an average person can afford to bring.”
By lando April 13, 2010 at 7:50 pm
I just spilled some hot coffee which left 1st degree burns on my fingertips and wrists.
I have placed ice over my wrists and they are still burny.
Does anyone know a great pit-bull lawyer?
I really need some quick cash because I can’t get that new 2010 F-150 King Ranch 4X4 outta my head.
Starbucks is gonna pay…
Please help my King Ranch fund.
Please, please don’t pass tort reform!
By conte April 13, 2010 at 8:16 pm
When Hutto goes to “work” in Columbia as a senator, it’s just part of his overall “work” as an ambulance-chasing lawyer. Part of the “work package” for that bastard. The same goes with Rankin. Too bad nothing will ever ever change.
By Justice C Kerr April 13, 2010 at 10:01 pm
I would hate to be Cam Crawford or anybody else who suckles at the teet of tort reform. The issue is dying! It is still there, but in decline. But for FITS who is on the take by the Coalition of Justice, nobody else cares. People know that without recourse to lawyers they would be screwed. Rot in hell FITSHIT.
By T4 April 14, 2010 at 4:43 am
As a business manager, workers comp. and casualty insurance are legitimate concerns. However, arguments for tort reform are collateral to the root cause(s) spiked insurance premiums. The premium spikes are caused by the cyclical nature of the economy and the internal prerogatives of insurance companies.
Insurance companies are profitable because they receive a lot of money quickly to invest with the luxury of paying it out over time. Naturally, failure to anticipate market changes screws the little guy out of coverage or renewal.
Eg., When interest rate cuts diminish high returns on investments (insurance premiums), long-term insurance companies generally try to salvage profitability by restricting coverage and increasing premiums.
If lawsuits/jury verdicts were to blame, premiums would gradually rise over time rather than spike in short periods. Also, most casualty insurance policies don’t cover punitive damages – which tort reformers claim to be the reason for reform. Haha, I mean WTF?
By BLEnforcer April 14, 2010 at 7:15 am
Numerous factors play into the rise in insurance premiums,
but the “business climate” in SC will never improve until
our abysmally stupid workforce and citizens demand at least
an average education whether public, private, home school or
whatever. Just reaching average in education would make the
state far more attractive to new businesses than any tort
reform measure could possibly hope to achieve. BTW, premium
increases are best resolved by way of an active insurance
commission that polices the industry’s yearly money grab,
but ours is simply a lapdog for the insurance industry.
By FactChecker April 14, 2010 at 9:24 am
Many “conservatives” who support “tort reform” are not conservative at all, they just use talking points, instead they support special interests and big business.
Small business are not likely to benefit and may lose to big businesses such as in areas like contract law and patent violations.
Do you notice that its called “tort reform” more often than overall legal reform, do you even know what a “tort” is, those multi million dollar lawsuits such as a producer getting fired are not “tort” suits and corporations file lawsuits all the time that are so.
A true conservative will wisely get back to the basics and not adopt talking points from so called chambers, foundations, and so on.
By Checking in April 14, 2010 at 10:24 am
First of all, it appears by your math FITS that the bill would pass out 4-3. So why has it not. Maybe it’s because those pushing the bill have failed to make their case.
Multiple surveys have shown that lawsuits are not a concern for small business owners. A survey from the National Association of Manufacturers suggests that “lawsuit abuse” ranks at the bottom of concerns for manufacturers. A 2008 survey from National Federation of Independent Business had similar results, with “costs and frequency of lawsuits / threatened suits” ranking 65th on a list of small business owners’ worries.
In reality, only big corporations and their front groups want to destroy the legal system so they can’t be held accountable for negligence and misconduct. Drug, oil, and insurance companies have tried to hide behind small business owners to accomplish this; however, these surveys reveal their true intentions.
Your insurance premiums may be going up, but it has nothing to do with lawsuits. Look no further than the insurance industry’s annual profit reporting. In 2007, insurance companies reported a near-record profit of $61.9 billion. In comparison, the insurance industry’s 2004 profit was $38.7 billion, which broke all previous records. Their profits continue to rise, and unfortunately, your premiums are following suit.
The insurance industry has also made the argument that awards and damages should be limited; however, have later admitted that damage caps and reforms will not lower premiums. For example, American Insurance Association spokesman Dennis Kelly told the Chicago Tribune in 2005 that, “We have not promised price reductions with tort reform.”
It seems to me the case hasn’t been made. And also, SC is one of the most business friendly states in the country. Many national publications (Forbes, Money Mag, Fast Company, Inc. Kiplingers, WSJ) all constantly have SC in the top 15.
By Sg April 14, 2010 at 10:35 am
If we dont pass this bill Boeing will never relocate to a place with such unfriendly business laws!
oh, wait…
By Trial lawyers are a joke! April 14, 2010 at 2:11 pm
You trial lawyers are such a joke.
Who in their right mind thinks that lawsuits are good for business?
You do not know anything about business or economic development so quit posting these ignorant comments.
Get a MBA and do something useful with your life!
By Checking In is Comic Relief April 14, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Who has more credibility on economic development?
Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor or Checking In aka the trial lawyers?
Let’s see …. Joe Taylor successfully recruited Boeing to South Carolina …
Checking In … well …. only wants to sue businesses ….
By The Associate April 14, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Let me begin by saying that I am a civil trial lawyer. I handle both plaintiff’s and defense work. For all of those small businesses that are worried about frivolous lawsuits being brought against them, we already have the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act. It awards fees and costs to anyone who is the victim of a frivolous lawsuit. Our legislature has fixed the venue problem so the only lawsuits being brought in Hampton and Jasper counties belong in those counties. If you think tort reform will bring down the cost of anything, you’re mistaken. 99% of cases are under the cap set by tort reform anyway and good luck getting a punitive damages award. Tort reform is being pushed by groups like the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce — since when did they actually have businesses in mind in anything they do?
By Checking In April 14, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Checking In is Comic Relief,
Joe Taylor did not single handedly recruit Boeing. That was a joint effort on many fronts. If you think Joe Taylor is the reason, please call me as I have some oceanfront lots in Pickens to sell you. And I’m not a lawyer, but one who does research. You should try it. Keeps you from looking like a fool.
By Checking In is Comic Relief April 15, 2010 at 9:08 am
Checking In,
Why is NFIB and the the National Association of Maunufacturers the leading proponents of tort reform?
Your so-called research is a bunch of lies.
Don’t rely on the trial lawyers for your information. It makes you look like the joker you are.
By Defense Attorney April 18, 2010 at 2:19 am
Do you people even realize what punitive damages are? I practice defense work and think this is a ludicrous idea. Punitive damages have NOTHING to with frivilous law suits. Punitive damages can ONLY be awarded when the liability is more than clear (not just showing negligence) but when the actions taken were done with intent to cause the harm done – or express intent to cover up the wrong done – fraud and other reasons. Punitive damages are what take the place of actually punishing deplorable behavior by person or company when the compensable damages (amount you actually lost) won’t deter the wrongful behavior.
Say you are at the head table at your wedding – someone comes up and spits in your spouses faces just before you are going to have your first dance. What are your compensable damages? The cost of a hanky? But what is going to deter this person from taking this type of action in the future…answer punitive damages. Now here is the rub, when you cap punitive damages – a company, person or other entity can start to act wrecklessly INTENTIONALLY if they can put a bean counter to it and figure out that “hey, hillbilies in S.C. were stupid enough to pass a cap on punitive damages – we can INTENTIONALLY make unsafe products and send them down there because an arm or leg or only gets hackes off in x number of instances but putting the safety mechanism in place on everyone of these things would be more than the punitive damages cap so….?”
Under the last tort reform limiting awards against charitable institutions to $300,000.00 we got a “really” great deal (note my sarcasm). You could have $400,000.00 in medical bills – WIN your entire law suit and come out $100,000.00 in the whole, even if liability were clear? Fair – not really, and it only happens in a small number of cases like that – but it is a tremendous injustice that was legislatively instituted in the name of tort reform. This punitive damages cap is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse and will actually incentivise intentially bad behavior in this state by large coporations. It is a terrible idea.
Again, I work on the civil defense side of the bar. S.C. already had court rules in place to financialy punish parties and members of the bar who even choose to file frivilous law suits. This is a re-election ploy to help politicians and hurt South Carolinians.
By Well said Defense Attorney April 19, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Spot on points Defense Attorney.
It amazes me that those who know so little about the legal system are falling over to give their rights up to Yankee and foreign owned corporations and insurance companies.
Pingback: SC Club for Growth - SC Club for Growth Weekly Press Clips – April 23
By Thomas February 11, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Anyone who favors a $350,000.00 Cap on Punitive damages needs to
educate themselves on the reason for punitive awards. I don’t
suppose things like deterance and punishment mean anything to
those who want the cap. Maybe those people need to stop and consider just how much a day of their lives would be worth if
they’re about to lose it. How much would their child’s life be worth if it was taken. How much does it take to punish or deter
wrongful acts of Individuals or conglomerates who count their anual profits in tens of Billions of Dollars. The obvious problem with those who support a punitive cap is they think $350,00.00 is some great fortune. Try to imagine a five gallon bucket filled with okra seeds. Then Assign a value to each seed of about three thousand dollars. Then remove 150 seeds. Smooth the top or the bucket and see how much the loss effects the total.
The concept of alllowing companies to run rampant without fear of
proportional retribution is from a warped mentality. If companies are attracted to this state because they need fear
only minimal punitive or deterant penalties don’t need to be here.