Whose interpretation of the 2023 bail-bond premium rules controls in South Carolina, the Attorney General's or the Department of Insurance's?
Plain-English summary
In June 2024 the South Carolina Attorney General issued an opinion to Judge B. Lee Miller reading Section 38-53-170(e), a bond premium provision in the 2023 bail-bond reform package, one way. The Department of Insurance, which actually regulates surety bondsmen, professional bondsmen, and runners, read it differently and codified its reading in Director Wise's Order No. 2024-07.
The DOI's general counsel asked the AG to either withdraw or modify the earlier opinion. In this 2025 follow-up, the AG kept its original reading on the books but acknowledged the statute's language can fairly be read either way. Because the Department of Insurance is the agency the legislature charged with administering Title 38, Chapter 53, the AG deferred to the DOI's interpretation. Practical takeaway for the industry: follow the DOI's order until a court or the legislature provides clarification.
What this means for you
If you are a licensed bail bondsman or a runner
Comply with Director Wise's Order No. 2024-07 on your treatment of bond premiums. The AG has now publicly said the DOI's interpretation of Section 38-53-170(e) controls in practice. Acting on the AG's earlier 2024 opinion to Judge Miller without checking the DOI order risks running afoul of the regulator that licenses you and decides whether you keep that license.
If you are a surety company writing bail bonds in South Carolina
Update your South Carolina underwriting and premium-handling procedures to match Order No. 2024-07. The AG's deference to the DOI shifts the practical risk of a mismatched interpretation onto the company, not the regulator.
If you are a clerk of court
Section 38-53-20 names you alongside the DOI Director and SLED as having "authority and power to administer" Title 38, Chapter 53. If you have been processing bond paperwork under the AG's June 2024 reading, coordinate with your court administrator and the DOI to make sure your procedures match the DOI's current order. The AG opinion does not say clerks must defer to the DOI; it just says the AG itself does. But practically, divergent interpretations within a single courthouse cause litigation.
If you are a criminal defense attorney
If you have a client whose bond was set or revoked under a premium calculation that follows the AG's June 2024 opinion rather than the DOI's order, you now have a written AG acknowledgment that the DOI's reading is the operative one. That can be useful in motion practice, especially if the difference matters to your client's release.
Common questions
Q: What is "Section 38-53-170(e)" actually about?
A: It is a subsection of South Carolina's bail-bond statute dealing with bond premiums, the amount the bondsman charges and how it relates to the face amount of the bond. The 2023 bond reform legislation amended this area, and the DOI and AG read the new language differently. The AG opinion does not lay out either reading in detail; it simply acknowledges the disagreement and defers.
Q: What is "Order No. 2024-07"?
A: A Department of Insurance order titled "Requirements for Surety Bondsmen, Professional Bondsmen, and Runners," issued by DOI Director Michael Wise in 2024. It tells the industry how the DOI interprets and intends to enforce the 2023 bond reform rules on premiums. The AG opinion links the public copy at doi.sc.gov.
Q: If the AG and the DOI disagreed, why does the DOI win?
A: The legislature put the DOI Director "in charge" of Title 38, Chapter 53, and explicitly tasked the Director with promulgating regulations to enforce its provisions. South Carolina courts treat the agency closest to a statute as the agency whose reasonable interpretation gets deference, especially where the statutory language could plausibly support more than one reading.
Q: Can the AG just withdraw an old opinion when an agency disagrees?
A: AG opinions are advisory; they do not bind agencies or courts. The AG here did not formally withdraw the June 17, 2024 opinion, it left that on the books and instead added a new opinion saying the DOI's reading controls in practice. If you need to cite the original 2024 opinion for a legal argument, do so, but cite this 2025 follow-up at the same time.
Q: What if a court eventually rules against the DOI's reading?
A: Then the DOI would have to amend its order and the industry would have to update again. The AG flags exactly that possibility: bondsmen and runners should follow the DOI's order "pending any judicial or legislative clarification."
Background and statutory framework
South Carolina's bail-bond market is regulated under Title 38, Chapter 53 of the Code. Surety bondsmen, professional bondsmen, and runners are all licensed by the Department of Insurance. Section 38-53-20 distributes administrative authority across three actors: the DOI Director, the clerks of court (who handle the paperwork on the court side), and SLED (which has investigative authority). The 2023 bond reform legislation reshaped several pieces of how premiums and forfeitures work, and a written DOI order plus an AG opinion plus practical industry behavior have all had to catch up.
The AG's path here, modify rather than withdraw, then defer to the agency, is a common move when the statutory language is genuinely ambiguous and the agency is the front-line enforcer. South Carolina law generally requires courts to give "great deference" to a regulating agency's reasonable construction of the statute it administers, Captain's Quarters Motor Inn, Inc. v. S.C. Coastal Council, 306 S.C. 488 (1991), and the AG opinion implicitly relies on that doctrine.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- S.C. Code Ann. § 38-53-20 (administrative authority over Title 38, Chapter 53)
- S.C. Code Ann. § 38-53-170 (bond premium provision)
Agency materials:
- DOI Order No. 2024-07: Requirements for Surety Bondsmen, Professional Bondsmen, and Runners
Earlier AG opinions referenced:
- Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2024 WL 3186557 (June 17, 2024) (the original opinion to Judge Miller now modified)
- Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2022 WL 1286845 (April 20, 2022) (deference to administering agency)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-the-2023-bond-reform-legislation-specifically-bond-premiums/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/nsvl4pqq/mcgriffg-os-11051-final-opinion-7-31-2025.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.
ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 31, 2025
Gwendolyn McGriff, Esquire
General Counsel
South Carolina Department of Insurance
PO Box 100105
Columbia, SC 29202
Dear Ms. McGriff:
Attorney General Alan Wilson referred your letter to the Opinions section for a response. In your letter, you ask that we withdraw or modify our June 17, 2024, opinion to the Honorable B. Lee Miller regarding the 2023 bond reform legislation, specifically bond premiums. Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2024 WL 3186557 (June 17, 2024). In your letter, you advised that the Department of Insurance's interpretation of South Carolina Code Section 38-53-170(e), differs from the one expressed in our opinion to Judge Miller. You also provided our office with a copy of Order No. 2024-07 issued by Director Wise which provides guidance on the issue. https://doi.sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14862/Order-2024-07-Requirements-for-Surety-Bondsmen-Professional-Bondsmen-and-Runners, last visited July 29, 2025.
Law/Analysis
The director of the Department of Insurance, clerks of court, and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division have the authority and power to administer the provisions of Title 38, Chapter 53. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-53-20 (Rev. 2015). Additionally, the director is charged with promulgating regulations "to enforce the purposes and provisions" of the chapter. Id. Our interpretation of the Section 38-53-170(e) remains unchanged, but we recognize the language of the subsection can be interpreted differently. Therefore, we defer to the interpretation of the Department of Insurance as the agency with regulatory authority. Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2022 WL 1286845 (April 20, 2022). Further, we advise any bail bondsmen and runners to follow the department's instructions and orders regarding the issue pending any judicial or legislative clarification.
Sincerely,
Sabrina C. Todd
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General