|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
For the first time since South Carolina’s asbestos docket began metastasizing into one of the most powerful — and secretive — mass-tort engines in the country, the state Supreme Court has decided to enter the fray.
In a closely watched order (.pdf) issued last month, the justices seized control of a sprawling appeal challenging the legality of the asbestos receivership overseen by former chief justice Jean Hoefer Toal – freezing key aspects of the litigation while they decide whether the entire framework underpinning the docket is lawful.
The move marks a pivotal escalation in the fight over South Carolina’s asbestos racket — which critics contend is a corrupt, secretive system lacking normal checks and balances, fueled by sealed settlements, driven by politically connected lawyers, and marked by the abuse of expansive receivership powers rarely seen elsewhere in the country.
***
THE COURT TAKES THE WHEEL
The Supreme Court’s order took the case in question away from the S.C. court of appeals and put it on an expedited track — an unusual step typically reserved for cases of exceptional public importance.
At issue is whether the circuit court – acting through Toal in her role as an administrative judge – exceeded its authority by empowering a court-appointed receiver to exercise sweeping control over foreign corporations with no meaningful ties to South Carolina.
The justices directed the parties to brief whether the circuit court had authority to create and expand the receivership in the first place — a threshold question that could determine whether the entire structure can legally stand.
That framing alone sent shockwaves through the asbestos bar…
***
RELATED | TOXIC JUSTICE: INSIDE THE SOUTH CAROLINA ASBESTOS RACKET
***
WHAT’S BEING CHALLENGED
The appeal stems from orders issued this fall by Toal reaffirming – and then expanding – the authority of the asbestos receiver. Toal’s orders included the approval of a new Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), the sealing of additional settlement agreements, and the ongoing ensconcing of an opaque structure that critics say effectively creates a privately-run asbestos compensation system inside the state courts.
Foreign corporate defendants argue the receivership traces back to a case that never should have supported such a structure in the first place — a long-dormant matter with no plaintiff, no judgment, no seized property, and no jurisdictional hook.
In short, the challengers argue the asbestos docket has crossed the line from adjudication into administration — and that the line was crossed years ago.
***
A PARTIAL PAUSE — BUT NOT A SHUTDOWN
While the Supreme Court’s order stayed a pending bench trial and put multiple related motions on hold, it stopped short of halting the asbestos docket entirely.
Lower courts were permitted to continue handling routine matters and approving settlements while the appeal proceeds — a decision that has drawn criticism from defendants who argue that allowing the system to keep operating risks compounding any illegality the court may ultimately identify.
That tension — between appellate review and ongoing settlement activity — now sits at the center of the case.
***
WHY THIS APPEAL MATTERS
This is not simply a fight over one receiver or one asbestos defendant.
As FITSNews has documented throughout its Toxic Justice series, South Carolina’s asbestos docket has become the linchpin of a broader power structure linking judicial appointments, legislative influence, contingency-fee litigation, and sealed financial arrangements largely shielded from public scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s intervention raises the possibility — for the first time — that those structures may finally face meaningful judicial review.
It also comes at a moment when lawmakers quietly preserved the asbestos docket from tort-reform changes this spring, while pairing it with emerging PFAS litigation — a move critics say positions South Carolina to replicate the same model for the next generation of mass-tort cases.
***
RELATED | S.C. CHIEF JUSTICE: JUDICIARY ‘UNDER ATTACK’
***
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Briefing is now underway under the Court’s accelerated schedule, with final arguments expected in the coming weeks.
Based on those arguments, the five justices of the court could:
- Uphold the receivership and allow the system to continue largely unchanged,
- Narrow its scope and impose stricter limits, or
- Determine the receivership was never lawful — a ruling that could send shockwaves through years of asbestos litigation and settlement activity.
For now, the asbestos machine continues to run — but under a cloud of scrutiny it has never faced before.
And for the first time in years, the ultimate question is no longer being decided in a sealed order from a circuit court.
It’s being decided by the only body with the authority to stop it.
***
COMING NEXT IN TOXIC JUSTICE
As the Supreme Court weighs the future of South Carolina’s asbestos docket, FITSNews will examine how the same legal and political architecture is already being positioned to absorb PFAS litigation — and what that could mean for consumers, taxpayers, and public trust in the courts.
Because if the justices don’t draw a line here, critics warn, asbestos won’t be the end of the story — just the template.
We will also keep track of ongoing efforts to reform the Palmetto State’s notoriously corrupt method of judicial selection – including a lawyer-legislator controlled panel of “merit” screeners which just so happens to include the receiver at the heart of the asbestos docket.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
