(Image by 123rf.com)

For nearly three decades, the Blind Horse Saloon was a country music landmark on Lowndes Hill Road in Greenville. Its stage was a stepping-stone to greatness, with Jason Aldean, Eric Church, Miranda Lambert, Luke Bryan and more performing there before they hit it big. But the Blind Horse went out not in a blaze of fiddles and slide guitars — rather, the end came in a May 6 social media post announcing that its liquor liability insurance premiums had grown too high for it to stay open.

Months later, the bitterness remained evident in owner John Paul’s voice.

“Just got tired of dealing with it,” he said. “It ain't worth it. I mean, I’m 84 years old, and my partner is 87. We don't need this crap. And we've been in business for 29 years, never had any problems. But when the change in that liquor liability thing came, it put a hurting on everybody.”

Paul is referring to the ramifications of a 2017 state law which required establishments that serve alcohol to carry at least $1 million in liquor liability insurance. The effects of that measure passed seven years ago are truly being felt now, as policies come up for renewal — often for thousands of dollars more per month than what bar owners had previously paid. It’s leaving bar and restaurant owners with severe cases of sticker shock, forcing them to reconsider business practices, or in some cases leading them to close their doors altogether.

The Blind Horse Saloon may be the most notable casualty, but it’s hardly alone. The advocacy organization S.C. Venue Crisis keeps a grim tally, based on social media posts: Local Cue, a barbecue restaurant in Greenville, announcing it will no longer serve alcohol; Old Rock Quarry Winery in Enoree, announcing that it’s selling off its inventory; Palmetto Brothers Dispensary in Laurens, announcing its closure; Topside Pool Club in Greenville, announcing its closure; The Tulip Tree restaurant and Bar 1884, both in Spartanburg, announcing their respective closures; and on and on.

All of them cited liquor liability insurance costs as the reason why. At the Blind Horse, Paul said his premium had been around $7,000 per month — and when his policy came up for renewal, that figure jumped to $18,000 per month. “We saw it coming,” he said. “It’s a problem all over the state of South Carolina.” And that’s if establishments can get liquor liability insurance at all — several carriers have stopped writing such policies in South Carolina, leaving bar and restaurant owners with just a few remaining options, all of them expensive.

“Slowly but surely, insurance carriers have pulled out of the state of South Carolina. And the reason for that is, so many claims started coming in due to the $1 million policy,” said Chris Smith, executive director of the S.C. Bar and Tavern Association, a lobbying group formed in May to combat the liquor liability issue. “Like every business, they’re looking to make a profit, and they weigh the positives and negatives. And unfortunately, now we’re down to about four or five carriers, and I recently heard that another company is no longer taking renewals. So that’s another insurance company that is pulling out of the state of South Carolina.”

Meanwhile, owners are left to face difficult choices. State Rep. Jay Kilmartin (R-Lexington) said he recently turned in the liquor license for his cigar store in Columbia, because of liquor liability premiums that jumped from $1,500 annually to $28,000. “We may sell $12,000 a year in beer and wine,” he said. “I mean, we're not a lounge, we're just a place that has a few beers in the cooler. So that hurts us. We can’t sell it, the state can’t collect taxes from the sale of it. It hurts all the way around.”

Unintended consequences

The root of the issue is a piece of 2017 legislation known as the Dram Shop Bill, sponsored by state Sen. Luke Rankin (R-Conway) and Gerald Malloy (D-Hartsville). Any establishment applying for a license from the South Carolina Department of Revenue to serve beer, wine, or liquor on-premises after 5 p.m. is required to carry at least $1 million in liability insurance, according to the bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Henry McMaster on May 19, 2017.

The bill was spurred by a spate of drunken-driving accidents, including one that left Dillon police officer Jacob Richardson with permanent brain injuries. The bar that had allegedly overserved the drunken driver — whose passenger was killed in the collision — had no insurance, according to the S.C. Association for Justice, a plaintiff lawyers’ group which worked with Richardson’s father to push for the bill. At the time, the measure was widely viewed as a way of empowering victims.

“We don't need to lose sight of the fact that in 2017, there was a real problem of injuries and deaths related to alcohol consumption, related to the negligence of an establishment that served alcohol, and the establishment not having the financial ability to make the victims whole,” said state Rep. Jason Elliott (R-Greenville). “So that's why that's why there was the change in 2017. It was necessary at the time do that. The unintended consequence comes when you combine it with the liability system that we have, which has resulted in result in a situation now where you have far fewer carriers providing this type of insurance and the rates for these policies going through the roof.”

Elliott authored the only bill that addressed the liquor liability issue in 2024, one which would have allowed bars and restaurants that took certain steps — such as server training, increasing their ratio of food sales to alcohol sales, and stopping alcohol sales earlier in the evening — to reduce their required liability minimum from $1 million to $250,000. The bill passed the S.C. House 106-2 in March, but was never taken up by the state Senate. Advocates for liquor liability reform had hoped legislators would take up the issue during a series of special sessions in June, but that never happened.

Now lawmakers must wait until the start of the 2025-2026 General Assembly before trying again. “The very frustrating part is that we have a real problem as it relates to the availability and affordability of liability insurance for establishments that sell alcohol,” Elliott said. “But there's no mechanism to address that until at least January.”

Kilmartin, though, believes the liquor liability problem is part of a greater issue — South Carolina’s system of joint and several liability, which under state law can make individuals or businesses liable for all damages in a lawsuit, even if they’re only partially at fault. “Jason Elliott’s bill was a good start, but it was kind of lipstick on a pig. They blame it on the amount of liability that we’re required to have, but I blame it on joint and several liability,” said Kilmartin, who also owns a pair of Melting Pot restaurants.

The legislature took up that issue in April, through a Senate bill called the South Carolina Justice Act. Introduced by Sen. Thomas Alexander (R-Walhalla), the bill would have changed state law so defendants could be made to pay the entirety of damages in a case only if they were found by a court to be more than 50 percent responsible. If the defendants were found to be less than 50 percent responsible, they’d be on the hook only for the commensurate dollar amount of damages. The bill was championed by the hospitality industry as a way of reining in insurance premiums and reducing potential liability.

But like Elliott’s bill, it went nowhere. Senators first tried to exclude businesses that sold alcohol from the measure, and then blacklisted it after supporters tried to force a vote. Hanging over deliberations was the incident on Folly Beach one year earlier, when a bride leaving her oceanside wedding in a low-speed vehicle was struck and killed by an alleged drunk driver who authorities claim had been drinking that day at several bars on the island. In June, a judge awarded the victims $1.3 million in a lawsuit settlement that involved three Folly Beach bars and a rental car company.

“Changing the joint and several liability laws, as discussed in the legislature this year, puts the innocent crime victim at the end of the line and says, you’ll get what’s left after we treat those who contributed to your tragedy ‘fairly.’ Nothing is fair about short-changing crime victims whose worlds have been turned upside down and that often comes with astronomical medical bills,” said Steven Burritt, regional executive director for the South Carolina office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

“If a jury in a fair legal process determined how much the victim/survivor should get, they should get that amount and not a penny less. It’s immoral to switch to any other policy that places anyone’s monetary concerns, especially those to be found guilty of breaking the law, above that of the most innocent and impacted party. In addition, there was testimony in the legislature this year that liquor liability insurance rates are not always correlated to a state’s joint and several liability laws. It’s unthinkable that we might consider harming crime victims and then not even solving the problem that is supposedly behind the changes.”

Trickle-down effects

With the state legislature having adjourned on June 25, advocates for liquor liability reform in South Carolina will now almost certainly have to wait for the start of the next General Assembly in January. In the meantime, more bar and restaurant owners face difficult decisions. And then there’s the matter of which tactic lawmakers should take — another stab at changing the 2017 liquor liability law, or a renewed attempt at reforming the state’s liability structure overall?

“You have differing viewpoints among individual House members and senators, and among the leadership in both chambers, as to what is the best approach,” Elliott said. “One avenue to address would be taking up overall liability reform, which wouldn’t be limited to just liability insurance for establishments that sell alcohol. And then there are some members who just want to take up the alcohol liability. It’s probably going to be a dual-track process.”

Kilmartin believes a renewed attempt at overall liability reform would have support beyond the hospitality industry. “It's not just the liquor issue,” he said. “I know that truckers deal with a lot of joint and several liability, so they're on our side. It's just going to take political pressure. It's going to take a legislator’s friend’s bar going out of business, or one of their favorite watering spots. But it's affecting the everyday people of South Carolina, the little music venues, the American Legions and the VFW who can't serve beer to an 80-year-old veteran.”

In a best-case scenario, Elliott added, lawmakers could hammer out a compromise in the first session of 2025. What’s the worst-case? “It goes on until May of 2026,” he said. “The more complicated issues become, sometimes the longer it takes. The norm is for things to move deliberatively, which means slower than people want when there's a crisis.”

The lack of legislative action has left some bar owners frustrated. “Obviously, you have to get rid of all the idiots in the state legislature,” Paul said. “You can’t get them to move on anything. They were supposedly going to consider it, but they’re already out of session. Now it will be next year before they even bring anything up, and then they won’t do anything because so many of them in the legislature are either in the insurance business, or they’re lawyers.”

Even if there’s legislative action taken in 2025, Smith said it could take years for the insurance carriers who have pulled out of South Carolina to decide to come back. And the establishments that have closed their doors may never open again. “The governor and the state legislature like to talk about job creation and how they're pro-business,” he added. “But it’s a trickle-down effect. You're putting bartenders out of work, dishwashers out of work. Then you're talking about liquor distributors, you're talking about beer distributors. The list of people affected by this goes on and on.”

And it’s not just bars at risk — restaurants, country clubs, hotels, or any other establishments serving beer or wine after 5 p.m. must meet the insurance minimum, and the costs they incur. Liquor liability premiums for Kilmartin’s Melting Pot restaurants, he said, increased from $20,000 annually to $67,000. “I can absorb that hit for a little while, but that’s still huge,” he said. “I mean, restaurants are not as profitable as people think.”

Meanwhile, back at the Blind Horse Saloon, Paul is entertaining the idea of selling the building that once housed one of the Upstate’s premier country music venues — and is now filled only with memories. “We had just about everybody you see — we had Toby Keith, we had Blake Shelton, everybody,” he recalled. “It’s been awesome. But it’s just not worth it anymore.”