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 dual 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. Tadlock Painting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 322 S.C. 498 (1996), refined the standard: the insured must show conduct without "any reasonable basis," distinguishing genuine coverage disputes (no bad faith) from arbitrary or pretextual denials. Pitts v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., 352 S.C. 319 (Ct. App. 2003), confirmed punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of malice or reckless disregard. The legislature supplemented Nichols/Tadlock with S.C. Code Ann. § 38-59-40, which provides statutory damages plus attorney's fees on a finding that the insurer's refusal of first-party benefits was unreasonable, frivolous, or in bad faith. The two pathways are alternative remedies; pleading in the alternative preserves both. Cock-N-Bull Steak House, Inc. v. Generali Insurance Co., 466 S.E.2d 727 (S.C. 1996), confirmed that the bad-faith analysis applies to first-party total-loss disputes and that an insurer's reliance on a vendor-driven undervaluation is not a complete defense if the vendor's methodology fails to comply with SC Code Regs. 69-25. In the auto-claim context, recent multistate class actions targeting "typical-negotiation adjustment" and similar undocumented Audatex/CCC line items have repeatedly been pleaded as both 69-25 regulatory violations and § 38-59-40 / Nichols bad-faith claims, because South Carolina's documentation standards are explicit and the dual remedy creates serious litigation pressure. The Adjusters Act licensing requirement at §§ 38-47-10 et seq. provides an additional procedural lever — verifying carrier-side licensure often surfaces unlicensed adjusters or vendors providing valuations in SC, which is independent regulatory leverage.