Harvey Peeler

South Carolina leaders have long contended that limits on lawsuits are necessary to foster economic growth in the state. In 2011, a compromise has made reality of tort reform.

The S.C. House went along with a Senate version of legislation. The agreement caps punitive damages that are greater than $500k or three times the compensatory damages awarded. If it is found that the defendant was motivated primarily by financial gain, or the defendant’s actions rise to the level of felony charges, then the award can be increased to the greater of $2 million or four times compensatory damages. If it is proven that the defendant intended to harm the claimant, was convicted of a felony arising out of the same act, or acted under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then the $2 million cap would not apply.

The bill also provides that insurers must disclose limits of individual automobile coverage when a claimant requests the information. This will prevent claimants from having to bring suit in order to receive disclosure of limits.

The House and Gov. Nikki Haley had wanted a cap on punitive damage awards of $350,000 or triple the actual damages, whichever is greater.

But business groups and trial lawyers struck a compromise setting limits similar to Florida’s. Supporters argued the lack of punitive damage caps made South Carolina less competitive with other states.

Reaction from Republicans and Democrats was generally approving.

“No other bill this year will improve our state’s business climate like tort reform. This is great news for South Carolina businesses, and that means it’s great news for South Carolina,” Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, said. “We’re on the path to new jobs and more private investment thanks to the passage of this bill.”

House Minority Leader Harry Ott, D-St. Matthews, told The Associated Press he supports the Senate bill even though he wanted tougher limits. “But it still does take us a step in the right direction,” Ott said.

The legislation sets reasonable standards that protect businesses while also affording people the right to recover sufficiently from wrongs. That right should not be undermined in the name of business or any other factor.

Courtesy of The Times and the Democrat