State Snapshot
BASIC RULE
Workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy for injuries that arise out of employment and occur in the course of employment. S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-54.
This means that the employee may be able to recover medical benefits, wages, and disability benefits by filing a worker’s compensation claim. However, he or she cannot sue the employer (or co-employee) in tort (where the employee might obtain money damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury.
INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION
If an employer acts with a deliberate or specific intent to injure the employee, it is not protected from a tort lawsuit. The fact that the employer acts with recklessness or gross negligence is not enough to trigger the exception, however.
EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE
If the employer fails to carry workers’ compensation insurance, the exclusivity rule does not apply.
THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS
The exclusivity rule does not apply to third parties, only to the employer and co-employees. An injured worker can still pursue a “third-party claim” against a non-employer entity (e.g., a negligent equipment manufacturer or a driver from a different company).
STATUTORY EMPLOYEES
General contractors and other upstream companies may be treated as “statutory employers” for purposes of workers’ compensation.
This means that those general contractors:
- May be liable for workers’ compensation benefits to a contractor’s employee if that employee is performing work that is part of the owner’s trade, business, or occupation.
- Are insulated from most tort lawsuits under the exclusive remedy rule.
CO-EMPLOYEES
The immunity conferred by the rule applies not only to the direct employer, but also to co-employees. Thus, in many cases, co-employees are protected from tort lawsuits when acting within scope of employment, unless the co-employee intentionally injured the worker.
SLANDER CLAIMS
In South Carolina, the exclusivity rule does not apply where the tort is slander (making a false, harmful statement about someone) and the injury is to reputation.
RECENT CASES
Brockington v. Belk, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00300-SAL-TER (D.S.C. 12/01/25)
A former employee could proceed with an assault claim under state law against a supervisor. The court held that under South Carolina law, intentional assault falls outside the exclusive remedy rule. The law does not grant immunity to individuals who commit intentional torts against colleagues, the court said. The court conceded that an initial case for assault does not require proving intent. The elements of assault are: (1) conduct of the defendant which places the plaintiff (2) in reasonable fear of bodily harm.. Yet, an assault claim may still qualify for the intentional injury exception under the workers’ compensation statute.
Craig v. Sauer Brands, Inc., No. 7:22-cv-01164-JDA (D.S.C. 08/05/25).
The plaintiff was an account manager for EcoLab, which provided cleaning chemicals and services to Sauer Brands, a sauce manufacturer. While working, he fell into a puddle of chemicals, suffering severe burns. He sued Sauer Brands for negligence, alleging the company failed to maintain a safe environment. Sauer Brands argued that the claimant was its statutory employee and thus his only remedy was workers’ compensation. The court found that because Sauer Brands chose to outsource its technical maintenance, that work was not part of its “trade or business.” Thus, Sauer Brands failed to establish that the plaintiff was a statutory employee and the exclusive remedy rule did not apply to make it immune to tort lawsuits. The plaintiff’s negligence lawsuit was allowed to proceed.
Ballard v. Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., No. Case No. 2:24-cv-1682-RMG (D.S.C. 03/17/25).The plaintiff sued her former employer and supervisor alleging that her supervisor sexually assaulted her on two occasions during a business trip and that the company disregarded her report of the alleged assaults. The supervisor asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim based on the exclusivity rule. The court stated that to “be intentional in this context, the deliberate infliction of harm should be ’comparable to an intentional left jab to the chin.’” The plaintiff pointed to allegations that the employer knew the supervisor had previously engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct and should have known it would be repeated. “These allegations are not akin to a[n] intentional left jab to the chin as required by the intentional act exception,” the court said. The plaintiff’s tort lawsuit failed because it didn’t plausibly allege that the employer intentionally injured her.
