South Carolina’s New Liquor Liability Law: What Changed and What Still Needs Work

The below is an article authored by SCRLA Allied Member, Collins & Lacy, P.C., offering a clear breakdown of the recent legislative reforms to alcohol liability in our state, including changes to fault apportionment, mandatory training, and insurance requirements, as well as areas where the statute remains vague or incomplete. We hope it serves as a useful resource as the state's hospitality industry continues to prepare for the law’s effective date on January 1, 2026.

South Carolina’s New Liquor Liability Law: What Changed and What Still Needs Work

By Christian Stegmaier and Molly Flynn

South Carolina’s new liquor liability legislation (Act No. 42, R61, H3430) is the most consequential reform in decades to how our state approaches alcohol-related civil liability. The law, which becomes effective January 1, 2026, reshapes how civil liability is assessed, imposes new training and insurance requirements on permit holders, and introduces clearer obligations under regulatory law.

This was long overdue. But while the new statute brings South Carolina closer to what many other jurisdictions already have in place, it still leaves major gaps in clarity, consistency, and fairness for permit holders and their insurers.

What the Law Changes

1. Joint and Several Liability Reformed

Before this law, bars and restaurants could be on the hook for the full amount of a verdict returned in an alcohol-related lawsuit—even if they were only marginally at fault. This exposure was the product of the doctrine of joint and several liability, as codified by the General Assembly in S.C. Code Ann. § 15-38-15. That risk is now significantly reduced. The new legislation now provides that any defendant found to be less than 50 percent at fault will only be responsible for their allocated share of the damages. This shift in the apportionment rules introduces fairness and proportionality into what has long been a high-risk litigation space for permit holders.

2. Fault Allocation to Non-Defendants

The statute allows juries to allocate fault to individuals who are not named as defendants in the lawsuit. This is akin to Florida’s Fabre defendant doctrine.[1] This includes any alleged tortfeasor who contributed to the harm.

For these parties to be added to the verdict form, the defendant must disclose the intention to do so within 180 days of the commencement of the action. The plaintiff may oppose this addition and the defendant bears the burden of proof that the added tortfeasor’s breach of duty was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged damages.

As a matter of law, settling tortfeasors (whether or not a party) shall be added to the verdict form.

By separate amendment in this new legislation, if a co-tortfeasor was criminally charged with DUI, the defense may move to have them placed on the verdict form. If granted, and a verdict is returned against both the permit holder and the DUI driver, the permit holder’s liability is capped at 50 percent of actual damages.

3. New Scienter Standard: “Knowingly” Selling Liquor to the Intoxicated

One of the most important but underdiscussed changes is the amendment to Section 61-6-2220, which now prohibits the knowing sale of liquor to intoxicated individuals. This amendment now brings the sale of liquor in line with a similarly worded statute (S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580) prohibiting the knowing sale of beer and wine to intoxicated patrons.

Previously, the law barred sales of liquor to intoxicated patrons but left ambiguity as to the required state of mind. The new statute uses the word “knowingly,” signaling that liability requires actual or constructive knowledge.

Under the revised statute, plaintiffs must show that the server or establishment knew, or reasonably should have known, that the patron was intoxicated at the time of service. That standard gives defense counsel a stronger position. However, as has been the historical shortcoming with the beer and wine statute, the liquor statute provides no definition for “knowingly,” no list of indicators, and no safe harbor for permit holders who rely on valid ID and do not observe overt signs of impairment. While this amendment is welcome, the continued vagueness and lack of definition is not.

4. Mandatory Server Training

Beginning in 2026, all servers and managers must complete alcohol training through a Department of Revenue-approved course. The training is offered online and covers topics including visible intoxication, ID checking, and South Carolina alcohol laws. Training certificates are valid for three years and must be kept on premises.

5. Liquor Liability Insurance Requirements

The law requires establishments that serve alcohol after 5:00 p.m. to maintain liquor liability insurance or a general liability policy with a liquor liability endorsement. The minimum aggregate coverage is $1 million.

6. Insurance Discounts for Risk Reduction

Operators can reduce their insurance requirement by taking certain actions, such as:

• Ending alcohol service by midnight (limits reduced up to $250,000)
• Completing server training (limits reduced up to $100,000)
• Keeping alcohol below 40 percent of total sales (limits reduced up to $100,000)
• Using forensic ID scanning (limits reduced up to $100,000)
• Operating as a nonprofit (limits reduced up to $500,000)

Depending on the risk mitigation measures adopted, the required aggregate coverage may be reduced to as low as $300,000.

7. Annual Market Reporting by the Department of Insurance

The statute now mandates that the Department of Insurance produce an annual report on the liquor liability insurance market. This includes the number of policies issued, premiums written, claims closed with payments, reserve data, and insurer profitability.

8. Regulations for Collegiate Sporting Events

The law imposes specific requirements for beer and wine sales at college stadiums. These include training, ID checks, and zone restrictions. The Department of Revenue is charged with crafting a tailored enforcement and revenue structure for these venues by August 31, 2025.

Where the Law Falls Short

1. No Standalone Dram Shop Statute

Most states have a dedicated dram shop statute that clearly defines the cause of action, the threshold for liability, and the available defenses. South Carolina still does not. We continue to rely on common law (such as Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge) and fragmented statutory references to establish the standard of care. Without a unified statute, the standard of care remains unsettled and invites inconsistent application across jurisdictions.

2. Undefined “Knowingly” Standard

While the addition of the word “knowingly” to Section 61-6-2220 is a win for clarity, the law does not explain what that means in practice. Is it actual knowledge? Constructive awareness based on observed behavior? A presumption from continued service? Without guidance, juries are left to guess, and courts will have to sort through it in motion practice. Moreover, the law lacks a safe harbor for permit holders who relied on seemingly valid identification and did not observe signs of impairment.

3. No Direction on Intoxicated Passenger Claims

Many states either bar or limit claims by intoxicated passengers. South Carolina’s law does not address this issue. That omission leaves bars and restaurants exposed to large verdicts from individuals who voluntarily participated in the underlying risk. There is no first party liability in South Carolina; for all intents and purposes, an intoxicated adult passenger is a first party and should be treated as such by our law. This is a missed opportunity to define the legal responsibilities of all parties involved in alcohol-related incidents.

4. No Cap on Non-Economic or Punitive Damages

The law does not set any limits on pain and suffering or punitive damages. In venues where verdicts tend to run high, this keeps the door open for runaway awards, even in cases where liability is marginal. Many states limit damages in regulated industries to maintain predictability and insurability. South Carolina’s silence on this issue is a concern.

5. Server Training May Be Too Superficial

While training is now required (which is a welcome addition to our statutes), it is offered online and needs only to be completed once every three years. There is no requirement for in-person instruction or periodic refreshers. The risk here is that training becomes a check-the-box exercise instead of a genuine risk-reduction tool.

6. Insurance Availability Not Guaranteed

Mandating coverage is only part of the solution. The law does not address whether coverage will be widely available or affordable—especially for smaller operators or those in rural areas. There are no premium caps, risk pools, or rate regulations. In some cases, compliance may prove financially prohibitive.

7. Uncertainty Regarding Immediate Appealability of Adverse Decision Concerning Addition of Parties to Verdict Form

Another procedural shortcoming in the new liquor liability statute is its silence on whether a trial court’s decision to include or exclude a non-party tortfeasor from the verdict form is subject to immediate appeal.

Under South Carolina law, interlocutory appeals are generally disallowed. Absent a final judgment, appellate review is rarely granted unless the trial court’s order affects the mode of trial or impairs a party’s substantial rights. Whether the inclusion—or exclusion—of a party from the verdict form meets this standard remains uncertain.

This ambiguity matters. Fault allocation to a DUI driver, settling tortfeasor, or intoxicated passenger can dramatically shift liability and concordant exposure for a permit holder. If a court excludes such a party despite proper disclosure and proffer, the defendant is effectively forced to trial without the benefit of full apportionment. That missing apportionment may lead to inflated exposure or an unjust result, with no meaningful opportunity to correct the error until after final judgment. The new statute creates a right without clearly protecting an immediate remedy. Future legislative refinement should consider providing either a statutory right of immediate appeal or clear guidance on when such decisions implicate substantial rights sufficient for interlocutory review.

Final Thought

South Carolina’s new liquor liability law corrects a number of long-standing weaknesses in our system. It brings proportionality to liability, requires meaningful insurance coverage, and attempts to improve responsible service. That said, we are still missing key pieces that other states have had in place for years. Until we have a dedicated civil dram shop statute, clear guidance on passenger claims, and guardrails around damages and insurance access, we will continue to litigate from a place of uncertainty.

This framework is a foundation—not a finished product. South Carolina has a real opportunity to get this right if it stays focused on clarity, fairness, and sustainability. This starts during the next legislative session, which begins January 2025.

Link to full legislation: 2025-2026 Bill 3430: Tort Reform and Liquor Liability

About the Authors

Christian Stegmaier is President and Chief Executive Officer of Collins & Lacy, P.C., where he also chairs the firm’s Retail & Hospitality Practice Group. He represents national and regional clients in complex litigation and regulatory matters, with a focus on premises liability, liquor liability, and commercial disputes. He can be reached at cstegmaier@collinsandlacy.com.

Molly Flynn is a shareholder at Collins & Lacy, P.C., practicing in the firm’s Retail & Hospitality and Professional Liability Practice Groups. She is a seasoned litigator representing clients in premises liability, alcohol liability, and other general liability matters across South Carolina. Molly can be reached at mflynn@collinsandlacy.com.

[1] In Florida personal injury cases, a Fabre defendant is a third party who is not directly named in the lawsuit but is still considered potentially liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The term comes from the 1993 Florida Supreme Court case Fabre v. Marin. Essentially, in Florida, a named defendant can argue that a Fabre defendant contributed to the incident and should also be held responsible.