FITSNews: "Toxic Justice" Series
- SCCLR Newsletter
- Nov 10
- 5 min read
By: Jenn Wood
State lawmakers promised to fix South Carolina’s broken civil-justice system — then wrote a law that kept their own asbestos network immune from reform.
When South Carolina lawmakers vowed to “fix” the state’s broken civil justice system this spring, they sold their tort reform package as a long-overdue check on runaway verdicts and predatory lawsuits.
But buried deep within their so-called “compromise” bill — passed by a “Republican” supermajority and signed by governor Henry McMaster — was a single sentence which ensured absolutely nothing would change as it related to the state’s most politically connected docket.
“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.”(H.3430, §15-38-15(G))
This simple carveout preserved a pipeline of power and profit that we’ve tracked from the courtroom to the State House — an institutionally insulated racket of politically connected lawyers and secret, multimillion-dollar settlements that defines South Carolina’s asbestos industry, one of the United States’ most notorious judicial hellholes.
Palmetto State lawmakers insisted their new law constituted real reform — but what actually passed was a victory for South Carolina’s corrupt status quo (one that kept the state’s most secretive, incestuous docket off-limits).
THE REFORM THAT WASN’T…
The 2025 “lawsuit reform” package — a merged version of Senate bill S. 244 and House bill H. 3430 — was supposed to modernize South Carolina’s liability laws.
It promised to rein in “joint and several” liability, apportion damages fairly among defendants and let juries assign fault to non-parties. It was also pitched as a win for small businesses — cutting liquor liability coverage in half and adding mandatory server training to reduce insurance costs.
But when it came to asbestos, lawmakers quietly chose to preserve the current system. The final bill explicitly grandfathered every asbestos case already filed, ensuring those suits would proceed under the same rules that have enriched a tiny network of judges, receivers and politically connected law firms for more than a decade.
Among those insiders: Peter Protopapas, the court-appointed receiver at the center of this series — and House speaker Murrell Smith, whose law firm represents the receiver in multiple asbestos actions. Smith, Protopapas and another attorney linked to the docket either serve on the S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) – the panel responsible for choosing which judges get to stand for election and reelection in South Carolina – or control its appointments.
In other words, no group of people exercises more concentrated power over the selection of judges in the Palmetto State than the attorneys profiting from the asbestos racket.
THE ARCHITECTS OF THE CARVE OUT
When the House formed a special legislative committee to refine its tort “reform” bill, it didn’t rely solely on staff attorneys or neutral experts. Instead, it turned to two familiar figures from the asbestos docket: Protopapas and attorney John T. Lay.
The committee chairman, Weston Newton, introduced Protopapas and Lay during its May 1, 2025 hearing.
“The House has engaged these gentlemen … to help us work through the issues in 244, primarily the joint and several liability issues,” Newton said.
From the start, both men emphasized they weren’t there to advocate — a claim that sounded increasingly hollow as the debate unfolded.
“We’re not advocates here,” Lay told the panel. “We were asked to advise on pending and existing legislation … to create some options.”
“We feel very uncomfortable giving opinions… we got to stick to the facts,” Protopapas added.
Yet those “facts” would ultimately preserve the receivership framework they helped build — and keep asbestos safely out of reach of any real reform.
By the time the full S.C. House judicial committee met the following week, the contours of the “compromise” were clear. The alcohol exception was gone. The verdict form rules were rewritten. The insurance minimums were doubled. But asbestos was untouched.
The so-called “alcohol exception” had long made bars and restaurants uniquely vulnerable in civil court — forcing them to pay 100 percent of damages in alcohol-related cases even if they were only marginally at fault. Its removal was touted as a victory for small businesses and insurers, replacing the old joint-and-several liability exposure with new safety and training requirements for alcohol servers. The change showed lawmakers could rewrite an entrenched liability rule when they wanted to — just not when it came to asbestos.
“We’re going to be deleting the alcohol exception … and implementing mandatory alcohol server training,” one member summarized during the May 6, 2025 meeting.
Not a single word was spoken about removing the asbestos carve-out.
THE SENATE’S SILENT ADD-ON
Across the lobby, the Senate floor debate laid out the trade-offs — joint-and-several liability, drunk drivers on verdict forms, PFAS carve-outs — but barely mentioned asbestos.
“There are three issues the body is just going to have to vote on,” one senator said. “Joint and several liability … whether drunk drivers should be on the verdict form … and whether there should be a carve-out for PFAs.”
Behind the scenes, the carve-out language expanded. PFAS — the so-called “forever chemicals” at the center of emerging environmental litigation — was paired with asbestos in a single clause. The move exempted thousands of pending asbestos claims, many tied to the same receiverships this series has chronicled, from the new liability rules altogether.
By the time the final bill reached the governor’s desk, the carve-out’s inclusion was presented as a routine technicality. In reality, it was a precision strike — a legislative firewall protecting the state’s most lucrative docket from its own reform.
BOUGHT, PAID FOR – AND PROTECTED
This spring’s tort reform battle was already awash in trial-lawyer money. FITSNews reporting uncovered more than $1.1 million in attorney contributions to legislative campaigns between 2024 and mid-2025 — with speaker Smith’s campaign among the biggest beneficiaries.
Those donations coincided with dramatic vote flips and “compromise” amendments that gutted the bill’s toughest provisions.
S.C. senator Tom Fernandez admitted during debate on the floor of his chamber that the trial-lawyer lobby had offered him between $50,000 and $100,000 in campaign fundraisers if he voted against the bill — a confession so explosive it briefly shut down the chamber.
By the end of the session, the trial lawyers (and receivers) had gotten everything they wanted. They had preserved the Smith v. Tiffany precedent (.pdf) while raising malpractice and government-liability caps – and carving asbestos out of the reform altogether.
In Tiffany, the court ruled a defendant could still be held 100 percent responsible for noneconomic damages — things like pain, suffering, and emotional distress — even if they were found only one percent at fault for an incident. The decision effectively gutted the state’s “fair share” liability protections and opened the door for plaintiffs’ attorneys to target deep-pocket defendants — bars, businesses, or insurers — who had little real responsibility but the ability to pay.
Tort reform advocates had pushed for years to fix it, arguing that Smith v. Tiffany created a legal environment tailor-made for jackpot verdicts. But when the final “reform” bill passed, the precedent was not overturned — it was codified into law.
The irony is inescapable. A bill sold as a victory for small businesses and consumers ultimately codified the system that keeps South Carolina’s courts among the most politically compromised in the country.
In a state where lawmakers elect judges, judges appoint receivers, and receivers hire lawmakers, it should surprise no one that the law was written to protect the docket at the heart of that power loop.
Once again, the system protected itself — and the cycle continues.
In the next installment, FITSNews will examine where that cycle leads next: how lawmakers have already positioned South Carolina’s courts to replicate the asbestos model for PFAS litigation — setting the stage for another generation of sealed settlements, political appointments, and profit cloaked in reform.
