House panel backs 30-day guardrail for 'time-limited' insurance demands; default-judgment amendment tabled
March 03, 2026 | 2026 Legislative Meetings, South Carolina
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
A House Judiciary ad hoc committee advanced H.4670 on Tuesday, endorsing a sponsor amendment intended to limit abusive "time-limited" settlement demands by requiring they be made in good faith, be reasonable in their terms and provide insurers at least 30 days to act.
Sponsor Rep. Jordan described the measure as a way to codify guardrails the Supreme Court and courts have tried to construct around practices some plaintiffs' counsel have used to create unfair pressure on insurers. "It allows for time-limited demands but it must be made in good faith...it must be reasonable in its terms and...there would be at least 30 days for the insurer to provide a response," Jordan said.
Rep. Hart successfully sought a unanimous-consent change to replace the permissive word "may" with the mandatory "shall" in a section of the amendment, tightening the statutory language. Several members pressed for clarity about how courts would determine "reasonableness" and whether additional language might invite litigation over form and process; supporters said the 30-day minimum was a practical compromise.
Rep. McCabe offered an amendment that would bar plaintiffs from seeking a default judgment against an insured defendant unless the liability insurer is served with the pleadings and given 30 days to appear—a proposal intended to ensure insurance coverage is available before a default is entered. Multiple members raised procedural and practical concerns: how plaintiffs are to identify and serve insurers when the defendant may be the only one who knows the carrier, interactions with FR-10/DMV insurance verification, potential conflicts with court default-judgment rules, and the risk of advantaging insurers.
After extended debate, Jordan moved to table McCabe's amendment for further consideration; the committee voted to table it. The body then recorded a favorable report for H.4670 as amended (chair announced 23 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 not voting). The tabling vote leaves McCabe's proposal for separate study rather than immediate inclusion in H.4670.
Because the tabling vote preserves the underlying measure’s 30-day guardrail while sending more complex service-and-default issues to further review, the bill now proceeds toward full committee consideration.
Sponsor Rep. Jordan described the measure as a way to codify guardrails the Supreme Court and courts have tried to construct around practices some plaintiffs' counsel have used to create unfair pressure on insurers. "It allows for time-limited demands but it must be made in good faith...it must be reasonable in its terms and...there would be at least 30 days for the insurer to provide a response," Jordan said.
Rep. Hart successfully sought a unanimous-consent change to replace the permissive word "may" with the mandatory "shall" in a section of the amendment, tightening the statutory language. Several members pressed for clarity about how courts would determine "reasonableness" and whether additional language might invite litigation over form and process; supporters said the 30-day minimum was a practical compromise.
Rep. McCabe offered an amendment that would bar plaintiffs from seeking a default judgment against an insured defendant unless the liability insurer is served with the pleadings and given 30 days to appear—a proposal intended to ensure insurance coverage is available before a default is entered. Multiple members raised procedural and practical concerns: how plaintiffs are to identify and serve insurers when the defendant may be the only one who knows the carrier, interactions with FR-10/DMV insurance verification, potential conflicts with court default-judgment rules, and the risk of advantaging insurers.
After extended debate, Jordan moved to table McCabe's amendment for further consideration; the committee voted to table it. The body then recorded a favorable report for H.4670 as amended (chair announced 23 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 not voting). The tabling vote leaves McCabe's proposal for separate study rather than immediate inclusion in H.4670.
Because the tabling vote preserves the underlying measure’s 30-day guardrail while sending more complex service-and-default issues to further review, the bill now proceeds toward full committee consideration.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
