A controversial receivership scheme in South Carolina’s asbestos court sparked international legal backlash this year and propelled the state’s asbestos litigation to the No. 3 ranking on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s 2025-2026 Judicial Hellholes® report released today.
With former Chief Justice Jean Toal overseeing the state’s asbestos docket, the court has drawn international scrutiny for appointing a single local trial lawyer as a receiver at least two dozen times — even for active foreign corporations. Those appointments have triggered courtroom rebukes from judges in Canada and the United Kingdom, federal courts in the U.S., and could soon reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
“South Carolina’s asbestos litigation has veered far off course,” said Tiger Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association. “It’s not just a local problem anymore — it’s an international legal crisis born from judicial overreach. Judge Toal is eroding public confidence in her court and global businesses are on notice that South Carolina is a danger zone.”
In recent years, the asbestos court has used receiverships, originally meant to protect defunct companies’ assets, to instead seize authority over solvent firms across borders — including Canada’s Asbestos Corporation Limited and England’s Cape Intermediate Holdings, among others. A Canadian court described the move as “astonishing,” while the English High Court found that the South Carolina receiver’s actions “seriously compromised” corporate defenses and violated international law.
Federal courts have taken similar issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit condemned the court’s use of receiverships as “a radical intrusion” into other states’ sovereignty. In that case, the receiver attempted to block the board of directors of former New Jersey talc supplier Whittaker, Clark & Daniels from filing for bankruptcy without the receiver’s approval.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether those receiverships unlawfully entangled the South Carolina court in foreign affairs. In August, Atlas Turner asked the Court to review the case, arguing that the state court’s actions violated defendants’ rights, interfered with the sovereignty of other nations, and crossed into matters of foreign affairs. ATRA filed a brief supporting review, warning that the receiver’s sweeping claims of authority have disrupted businesses and drawn sharp criticism from courts across the United States and overseas.
“This is a deeply troubling pattern of judicial activism,” Joyce said. “This court has stretched its authority to serve narrow interests, and now the rest of the world is watching. It’s time for state leaders to restore fairness, transparency, and restraint before this problem causes more damage — both at home and abroad.”
Beyond the global controversy, legal advocates note that South Carolina’s asbestos docket remains notorious for its bias against defendants — often overturning jury verdicts that favor businesses, inflating awards when juries “don’t go far enough,” and imposing disproportionate sanctions.
According to recent data, South Carolina families pay an average “tort tax” of $3,544 per year due to excessive litigation costs. ATRF says those costs drive up prices, threaten local jobs, and undermine economic growth across the Palmetto State.
South Carolina’s asbestos litigation is ranked No. 3 among eight total Judicial Hellholes®. The full 2025-2026 report and complete rankings are available at JudicialHellholes.org.
