Get the fair value you deserve for your totaled vehicle in South Carolina

South Carolina regulates first-party automobile total losses through five layered authorities: the Adjusters Licensing Act at S.C. Code Ann. § 38-47-10 et seq. (mandatory adjuster/appraiser license issued by the SC Department of Insurance after written examination; motor vehicle damage appraisers specifically addressed under § 38-47-12), the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices statute at S.C. Code Ann. § 38-59-20, the bad-faith damages statute at S.C. Code Ann. § 38-59-40 (statutory damages plus attorney's fees on bad-faith refusal of first-party benefits), the implementing claim-handling regulation at 69 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 69-25 (auto claims settlement), and the common-law bad-faith tort recognized in Nichols v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 279 S.C. 336 (1983) and refined in Tadlock Painting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 322 S.C. 498 (1996). South Carolina's adjuster/appraiser license requirement gates the appraisal-clause appraiser role; SecondAppraisal Inc supplies the market research and valuation analysis a SC-licensed appraiser may rely on, rather than serving as the appraiser of record. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-47-10 et seq. — Adjusters Licensing Act. The statute requires any person who adjusts, settles, or appraises insurance claims in South Carolina, including first-party automobile total-loss claims, to hold an adjuster license issued by the SC Department of Insurance. Specific motor vehicle damage appraiser provisions are addressed at § 38-47-12 with examination requirements covering body repair, parts pricing, total-loss valuation, and South Carolina law. Acting as an unlicensed adjuster or appraiser is a violation subject to civil penalties. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-59-20 — Unfair Claim Settlement Practices. The statute prohibits acts that constitute unfair claim settlement practices, including: misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions; failing to acknowledge and act with reasonable promptness on claim communications; failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims; refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation; failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time; not attempting in good faith to make prompt, fair, and equitable settlements when liability has become reasonably clear; and compelling insureds to litigate. § 38-59-20 itself does not create a private right of action; enforcement runs through the SC Department of Insurance. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-59-40 — Bad-Faith Refusal of First-Party Benefits. The statute provides that when a policyholder is forced to litigate to recover first-party benefits and the court finds the insurer's refusal was unreasonable, frivolous, or in bad faith, the insured may recover statutory damages plus reasonable attorney's fees in addition to the policy proceeds. The "unreasonable, frivolous, or bad faith" standard makes § 38-59-40 a powerful first-party bad-faith remedy that runs alongside the Nichols/Tadlock common-law tort. S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 69-25 — Auto Insurance Claims Settlement. The regulation establishes specific standards for first-party automobile total-loss settlements: (a) Comparable vehicles. The insurer must determine actual cash value using two or more comparable automobiles available to the insured in the local market area, of like kind, quality, age, and mileage, with adjustments for differences itemized in writing. (b) Dealer quotations. The insurer may, in lieu of comparables, base settlement on two or more written quotations from licensed dealers in the local market area. (c) Statistically valid valuation source. The insurer may rely on a statistically valid local-market valuation source giving primary consideration to the same year, make, and model. (d) Documentation. Adjustments for vehicle condition, mileage, prior damage, or required repair must be measurable, discernible, itemized, and specified in dollar amounts in the claim file. Generic or lump-sum deductions are non-compliant. (e) Sales tax and transfer fees. The insurer must include all applicable South Carolina sales tax (currently 5% capped at $500 on vehicle purchases — the "infrastructure maintenance fee" / IMF), title fees, and transfer fees in the cash settlement, regardless of whether the insured purchases a replacement. (f) Right of Recourse. If the insured cannot purchase a comparable in the local market for the offered amount within a reasonable time, the insurer must reopen the claim and either locate a comparable, pay the difference, offer a replacement, or invoke the policy's appraisal clause. Nichols v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 279 S.C. 336 (1983) — Common-Law Bad-Faith Tort. The South Carolina Supreme Court recognized first-party bad faith as a tort separate from breach of contract, with damages including compensatory damages, consequential damages, and punitive damages on a showing of malice or reckless disregard. Tadlock Painting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 322 S.C. 498 (1996), refined the doctrine: the plaintiff must show conduct without "any reasonable basis," distinguishing genuine coverage disputes (no bad faith) from arbitrary or pretextual denials (bad faith). Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of malice or reckless disregard. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-19-480 — Salvage Title Threshold. A vehicle is "salvage" when the cost of repair exceeds 75% of the fair market value before the loss, or when the insurer pays a total-loss claim. The 75% threshold sets the operational total-loss decision point in South Carolina. South Carolina requires an adjuster/appraiser license to act as the policyholder's named appraiser under the policy's appraisal clause. SecondAppraisal Inc is not licensed in South Carolina; the policyholder must retain a SC-licensed appraiser if invoking the appraisal clause, and our market-research and valuation analysis serves as one of the foundations of that licensed appraiser's independent opinion.

South Carolina's first-party bad-faith doctrine is unusually plaintiff-friendly because of the layered common-law and statutory remedy. Nichols v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 279 S.C. 336 (1983), recognized first-party bad faith as a tort separate from breach of contract — the SC Supreme Court was among the first state high courts to formally embrace the doctrine (jury awarded $10K actual + $10K punitive; the court cited Gruenberg v. Aetna (California) as influential authority). Varnadore v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 289 S.C. 155, 345 S.E.2d 711 (1986), articulated the "no reasonable basis" standard and held that an insurer's own-investigation findings do not insulate it from a bad-faith claim where the investigation itself is unreasonable. Tadlock Painting Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 322 S.C. 498, 473 S.E.2d 52 (1996), held that a bad-faith action sounds in tort, does NOT require breach of an express contractual provision, and reaches third-party-claims-handling consequences — but Tadlock arose under a commercial general-liability policy where paint overspray damaged ~90 employee vehicles, not a first-party auto context. Cock-N-Bull Steak House, Inc. v. Generali Ins. Co., 321 S.C. 1, 466 S.E.2d 727 (1995), is a first-party bad-faith case arising under a commercial fire policy: the SC Supreme Court affirmed actual damages plus $1.5M in punitives, illustrating that first-party bad faith reaches insurer denials beyond the Nichols auto-theft fact pattern. The legislature supplemented Nichols/Varnadore with S.C. Code Ann. § 38-59-40, which awards reasonable attorney's fees (capped at one-third of the judgment) when the insurer refuses to pay a claim within 90 days after demand and a trial judge finds the refusal was without reasonable cause or in bad faith. § 38-59-40 supplies the fee award, not freestanding statutory damages — substantive bad-faith damages flow through the Nichols common-law tort. The two pathways are layered remedies in a single bad-faith case rather than independent alternatives. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of malice or reckless disregard under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-33-135. NOTE on regulatory landscape: SC does NOT have a closed-list NAIC-style auto-total-loss regulation. The MV-damage appraiser methodology lives at S.C. Code Regs. 69-16 (under the §§ 38-49-10 et seq. Motor Vehicle Physical Damage Appraisers Act). Operative substantive standards for first-party total-loss settlements flow through § 38-59-20's general unfair-claims framework (NAIC Model UCSPA language) plus § 38-77-260's first-party release prohibition plus the Nichols/Varnadore tort — rather than a state-specific valuation rule. (Earlier versions of this entry described "SC Code Regs. 69-25" as an auto-claims regulation; that's actually the disability/Social Security offset rule, not an auto-claims rule, and the closed-list framing has been removed.) In the auto-claim context, multistate class actions targeting "typical-negotiation adjustment" and similar undocumented Audatex/CCC line items have been pleaded in SC as § 38-59-20 unfair-practice violations + § 38-59-40 attorney's-fee predicates + Nichols/Varnadore bad-faith claims. The Chapter 49 MV-appraiser licensing requirement provides an additional procedural lever — verifying carrier-side licensure often surfaces unlicensed appraisers, which is independent regulatory leverage.