Home > About SCCJC

About SCCJC

Introduction

The South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition (SCCJC) serves as the united voice for the business community on tort and workers' compensation issues; coordinating lobbying, legal, grassroots and public relations activities.

History

In 2005, the South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition successfully lobbied for passage of tort reform resulting in South Carolina's Hampton County being removed from the American Tort Reform Foundation's "Judicial Hellholes" list.
The coalition had victories on joint and several liability, venue, statute of repose, and a reduction in the post judgment interest rate.
In 2007, the South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition successfully lobbied for workers' compensation reform that phased out the Second Injury Fund, corrected six anti-business Workers’ Comp court decisions, provided standards for repetitive trauma claims, allowed rebuttal evidence in certain instances and stream-lined the appellate process.

Policy Plan

OVERVIEW
The recent tort reform and workers' comp reform laws have improved our business climate by correcting some flaws in our tort and workers' comp systems. But to gain a competitive advantage we need further reforms, in particular, objective standards for workers' comp awards and reasonable limits on punitive damages awards.

How does South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia compare on workers' compensation costs?

According to the Small Business Survival Index 2007: (Number 1 being the preferred ranking.)

In addition, we are competing against foreign countries that do not have to pay workers' compensation.

What is the best way to reduce costs in our system making South Carolina more competitive with neighboring states and foreign competition? According to our research, the best way to reduce costs in South Carolina is to adopt objective standards such as AMA Guidelines.

According to the National Council on Compensation Insurance's cost analysis of S. 1035 in 2006, AMA Guidelines could reduce insurance premiums up to 9%.

How does South Carolina's litigation environment rank in recent studies?
(Number 1 being the preferred ranking.)

How do Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia rank in the Composite Ranking? (Number 1 being the preferred ranking.)

According to the US Chamber of Commerce's Harris Poll and the HWV Index. A reasonable limit on punitive damages is the single most important legislative issue in improving a state's legal climate.

Conclusion

While some improvements have been made in South Carolina, our litigation environment and workers' compensation costs are still having a negative impact on our business climate and lessening the competitiveness of our state. Making matters worse is our major competitors: North Carolina. Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia all have better legal climates and cheaper workers' compensation costs.

South Carolina's business and policy leaders must address these two issues so the Palmetto State can compete with surrounding states and global competition.

Successful Reform Efforts led by the South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition on behalf of the business community:

• H.3008
  In 2005, the General Assembly passed H.3008 that reformed South Carolina's tort laws including venue, joint and several liability, statute of repose, and post-judgment interest rates.
  
  H.3008 Summary<<
  
  
• S.332
  In 2007, the General Assembly passed S.332 that reformed South Carolina's Workers' Compensation laws by phasing out the Second Injury Fund, correcting 6 anti-business Workers' Comp court decisions, providing standards for repetitive trauma claims and allowing employers to offer rebuttal evidence in certain instances.
  
  S.332 Summary<<
  
  
• Executive Order 2007-20*
  Governor Mark Sanford required the Workers' Compensation Commission to confirm that all attorney's fees are reasonable complying with South Carolina law and rules of professional conduct and approved in writing.
• Executive Order 2007-19* Objective Standards Clarification
• Executive Order 2007-16* Requiring the use of Objective Standards

* Pending court action to determine constitutionality.