Toxic Justice, Part 6: ‘Forever Litigation’

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by JENN WOOD

***

When South Carolina lawmakers passed their much-ballyhooed tort reform package last spring, they sold it as a long-overdue correction to a civil justice system replete with runaway verdicts, abusive lawsuits and venue shopping. But buried inside the final bill — a “compromise” passed by a Republican supermajority and signed by GOP governor Henry McMaster — was a single sentence that protected the state’s most politically connected docket while quietly securing a future revenue stream for a clique of wealthy insiders.

“The provisions of this section do not apply to a cause of action involving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or asbestos commenced prior to the effective date of this act,” the legislative noted.

To the public, this clause looked like little more than legislative housekeeping. To those overseeing South Carolina’s asbestos litigation apparatus — and to attorneys positioning themselves for the next national wave of mass-tort cases — the carveout was something else entirely: a guarantee of continuity.

Asbestos cases will not last forever. But PFAS cases – or cases tied to so-called “forever chemicals” – just might.

Thanks to this carveout, early PFAS claims in South Carolina are positioned to move through many of the same structural pathways lawmakers declined to reform — including centralized judicial control, aggressive alter-ego theories, receivership-style litigation strategies, and high-stakes insurance recovery fights conducted largely out of public view.

This was not an accident. It was deliberate architecture.

***

THE NEXT ASBESTOS — ONLY BIGGER

PFAS — short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment. They have been used for decades in firefighting foam, industrial processes, stain-resistant textiles, nonstick coatings, and consumer products. They are now widely detected in groundwater, rivers, soil, wildlife — and human blood.

Across the country, PFAS litigation is accelerating at a pace that has drawn blunt comparisons from insurers and risk analysts.

National legal and insurance publications have repeatedly described PFAS exposure as the “next asbestos” — not only because of the alleged health impacts, but because of the projected litigation scale. Analysts warn of long-tail liability, decades-old insurance policy triggers, and multigenerational claim exposure — the same financial dynamics that made asbestos litigation one of the most expensive civil litigation waves in American history.

The science is still developing. The exposure pathways are complex. But the projected legal costs are already enormous — and those costs do not stay confined to corporate balance sheets. They flow downstream to consumers through insurance premiums, utility rates, municipal treatment costs, and product pricing.

This is why litigation venue and litigation structure matter so much…

***

RELATED | TOXIC JUSTICE

***

SOUTH CAROLINA’S GROWING PFAS FOOTPRINT

Recent investigative reporting by The Post and Courier and its national media partners has documented how PFAS contamination is not theoretical in South Carolina — it is measurable.

Sampling in the Lower Saluda River watershed identified elevated PFAS readings downstream from carpet-industry facilities, helping connect South Carolina to a broader regional story involving textile manufacturing, chemical coatings, and stain-resistant product lines historically tied to PFAS use. That reporting — based on court records, environmental data, and multi-state document reviews — traces how PFAS chemistry became embedded in carpet and textile production, and how contamination pathways extended into waterways serving downstream communities.

State testing has also found PFAS contamination across numerous South Carolina water bodies. The state attorney general has filed PFAS-related litigation. Utilities are evaluating treatment upgrades. Municipalities and watchdog groups are pursuing claims to recover cleanup costs.

In other words: the inputs for large-scale PFAS litigation are already present — industrial history, environmental detection, regulatory lag, and public-health concern.

All that remains is the litigation engine – and South Carolina has one.

***

THE HELLHOLE THAT HELD

In the meantime, the Palmetto State has again retained its place in the latest national “Judicial Hellholes” report published by the Americans for Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF) — with the state’s asbestos docket specifically cited as a continuing concern. Critics point to its concentrated judicial control, expansive receiver authority theories, cross-border corporate reach, and opaque settlement structures as indicators of a litigation environment tilted toward a small circle of repeat players.

That same structural model — centralized judge management, coordinated claims, insurance targeting, and entity revival strategies — is precisely the model critics fear could be replicated in PFAS litigation.

Lawmakers were warned about this dynamic during last year’s tort reform debate. Instead of dismantling the framework, though, they preserved it for pending asbestos and PFAS cases — and specifically carved those industries out by statute.

***

RELATED | ORAL ARGUMENTS SCHEDULED IN ASBESTOS RECEIVERSHIP FIGHT

***

ASBESTOS TIMING TURNING HEADS

The South Carolina Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in an asbestos receivership case for February 25, 2026 — a proceeding that will examine whether the receiver’s appointment was lawful, whether foreign corporate law limits the alter-ego theory being used, whether jurisdiction defenses were waived, and whether prior releases bar the claims entirely.

The hearing’s timing is notable.

Oral arguments will occur during the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) solicitation window — the period when sitting judges and justices must actively seek legislative endorsements to keep their seats. One of the requests to expedite the arguments came from a sitting JMSC member, according to filed correspondence (.pdf).

The attorney’s stated rationale focused on litigation scheduling concerns, but the result places a structurally sensitive case — one that directly affects the state’s most politically entangled docket — squarely inside the realm of judicial reappointment.

There is no proof of improper coordination. But the overlap underscores a recurring theme in South Carolina’s system: judicial power, judicial selection, and high-stakes litigation frequently operate on intersecting tracks.

That intersection is at the heart of this series…

***

WHO ULTIMATELY PAYS

Mass tort litigation is often framed as corporate accountability versus public harm. Sometimes that framing is accurate. But economically, the cost distribution is more complex.

Large-scale chemical and exposure litigation typically drives:

• Higher commercial insurance premiums
• Increased municipal water treatment costs
• Higher product compliance expenses
• Expanded reserve requirements for carriers
• Long-term rate adjustments passed through to consumers

PFAS filtration systems alone can cost utilities millions. Litigation recovery may offset part of that — but litigation itself is also a cost center, with contingency fees, expert costs, insurance disputes, and settlement layering built into the process.

South Carolina lawmakers publicly argued their reform bill would protect small businesses and consumers from systemic cost escalation. Yet they explicitly shielded the two chemical litigation categories most likely to generate the next generation of mega-claims.

That contradiction is not subtle…

***

THE END OF ASBESTOS — OR THE HANDOFF?

Asbestos built the machine… PFAS may inherit it.

The carve-out language ensures that early PFAS claims — like legacy asbestos cases — can proceed outside the reworked liability framework. The centralized docket model remains under Supreme Court review. The receivership structure remains under challenge. The judicial selection system that enabled it remains unchanged.

If the court shuts the structure down, PFAS litigation in South Carolina will look very different. If it does not, the transition from asbestos to PFAS will not be a disruption — it will be a handoff.

That possibility — more than any single lawsuit — is the real endpoint of ‘Toxic Justice.’

Because the question was never just how the system worked. It was whether anyone would stop it before the next wave arrived…

***

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.