A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 15-38-15, RELATING TO LIABILITY OF TORTFEASORS, SO AS TO REMOVE THE PROVISION THAT EXCLUDED CAUSES OF ACTION INVOLVING ASBESTOS FROM THE LIST OF NONDEFENDANT TORTFEASORS WHO SHALL NOT BE ADDED TO VERDICT FORMS.
Summary
H5636 amends South Carolina’s contribution-among-tortfeasors statute, Section 15-38-15, by removing the special rule that treated asbestos cases differently for purposes of verdict forms. Under current law, certain nondefendant tortfeasors are not placed on the verdict form, and the bill deletes the asbestos-specific exclusion from that list. As a result, asbestos-related causes of action would be governed by the same verdict-form rules that apply to other tort claims under the statute.
The bill also retains the existing rule that nondefendant tortfeasors generally are not added to verdict forms when they are immune, not subject to suit, engaged in wilful or reckless conduct, or when liability is based on strict liability. The governmental-entity exception remains in place as well, allowing certain public plaintiffs to proceed under the statute, with the existing carveout for PFAS-related claims. The bill takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Impact
This bill would change South Carolina tort procedure by striking the asbestos-specific language from Section 15-38-15(H), which governs when a nonparty tortfeasor may be listed on a verdict form for apportionment of fault. The practical effect is to remove asbestos cases from a special statutory category and place them under the general verdict-form framework for contribution and fault allocation among tortfeasors. It would affect asbestos litigation parties, including plaintiffs, defendants, and potentially nonparty entities whose fault might otherwise be considered in allocating damages.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate strong support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears narrowly targeted and technical rather than broad or controversial on its face. The absence of recorded discussion suggests sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond the bill’s apparent procedural focus on asbestos tort rules.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the removal of the asbestos-specific exclusion from the verdict-form statute. Supporters may view the change as a cleanup measure that aligns asbestos cases with the general tort framework, while opponents could argue that asbestos claims warrant distinct treatment because of their unique litigation history and liability issues. Any disagreement would likely center on how the change affects fault allocation, defendants’ exposure, and plaintiffs’ ability to recover in asbestos cases, but no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.