COLUMBIA--The Statehouse was abuzz last week when, in one day, the House and Senate found ways to pass two long-contested bills that would curb civil lawsuits.

Any backslapping among lawmakers and lobbyists might be short-lived, however, as the legislative bodies swap bills.

The feeling among lawmakers is that the fight is far from over.

Supporters call their efforts "tort reform" and say such legislation is necessary because frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury awards are driving up consumer costs and medical malpractice insurance rates.

Gov. Mark Sanford has been a big backer of change. He says most states already have similar laws and the longer South Carolina lags behind, the less competitive the state will be in attracting businesses.

Still, differences over key provisions in the bills surfaced quickly, suggesting what was good for the Senate might not be good enough for the House, and vice-versa.

The Republican leadership from both bodies also caused friction by publicly bickering about the best way to go about receiving and debating each other's bills. While such infighting isn't uncommon, it could be enough to derail progress.

"People are starting to get a little nervous," Rep. Harry Cato said Thursday while on his way to confer with the Senate leadership. The Travelers Rest Republican chairs the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee that worked on the House bill, mainly tailored to protecting businesses during civil suits.

Its sister bill coming out of the Senate, meanwhile, limits the amount juries can award in a medical malpractice suit for damages due to "pain and suffering."

"There are some obvious differences and we have our work ahead of us," Cato said. "If we can get these bills, even as is, to the governor's desk. I'd be a very happy man."

PRESSURE POINTS

Two issues stand out as most likely to trip up lawmakers: the dollar limits, called caps, found in the medical malpractice bill, and a provision in the general business bill that makes sure one defendant doesn't get stuck paying all the liability costs.

Caps on jury awards have been the most contentious element. Disagreement over whether to impose a limit and what it should be deadlocked the Senate for the past two years.

After a weeklong filibuster and back-to-back late-night sessions last week, senators agreed on a $350,000 cap for pain and suffering damages. A compromise allowed the cap to apply to as many as three defendants -- any combination of doctors and hospitals. That means the collective cap could come to $1.05 million.

The rationale behind the cap is that it will give insurance companies the predictability they need to assess risk, slowing skyrocketing malpractice rates.

Rep. Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, believes in caps, but doesn't like some aspects of the Senate bill, which is in a House subcommittee and could hit the floor in a week or two. Before then, Harrell says some work needs to be done.

"I'd like the caps to be lower and prefer them not to be 'stacked' ... that makes it a $1 million cap," Harrell said. "I expect there to be a lot of debate and a good deal of compromising."

Last year, the House passed a bill with a $350,000 cap that included certain exceptions, such as paralysis or death. The Senate bill has no exceptions, providing another possible pressure point if and when the two sides meet in conference committee to hash out their differences.

A more obscure part of the House bill may also need fine-tuning to pass muster with senators. The provision would do away with a current law allowing a plaintiff to force one defendant to pay a co-defendant's share of a jury award if that party can't come up with the money.

The Senate version sets a threshold for when plaintiffs can seek those extra damages. It may sound like splitting hairs, but Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, says it could be the "poison pill" that kills the legislation.

BLAME GAME

There are other issues troubling McConnell, who is considered the biggest power broker in the body.

For starters, the Senate pro tem says he is being pressured to replace the Senate version of the general business bill with the one from the House as part of a "gentleman's agreement" that he was neither consulted on nor would have agreed to.

Typically with big legislation, both the House and Senate will introduce similar -- sometimes identical -- versions of the same bill. In this case, both bodies had a medical malpractice bill and a business bill.

The so-called gentleman's agreement apparently said that if one of those bills made its way to the other chamber, the lawmakers there would work off that bill, rather than their own. The idea was to save time and not have to revisit the same topic.

McConnell says Senate rules and the touchy topic at hand don't allow it to work that way. He says the Senate will take up its own version of the bill.

That has Rep. David Wilkins, R-Greenville, fuming. In a rare move Thursday, the House speaker took to the podium to urge members to consult with their senator friends and make sure they "stick to the deal."

"We had an agreement with the leadership and expect them to abide by it," Wilkins said later. "It is simple and that's the way we are going to do it."

McConnell had some equally tough words. He thinks the House tossed the bill his way without vetting it.

"They were supposed to have this long debate over there and all of a sudden, in a few hours, they pass their bill and send it to me," McConnell said. "And then ... I have all these people from the business crowd telling me I have to take up that bill."

Part of the rancor stems from the way things work at the Statehouse. Legislation often moves more quickly out of the House than the Senate, which is known as the more deliberative body.

Some lawmakers say the House will tend to expedite a bill and depend on senators to duke it out over the nitty-gritty. That approach has led to the death of many bills in the Senate, reason for its reputation as a "graveyard."

"They send the bill to us and then the blame game begins," McConnell said.

He added, "The House looked over and was stunned we were moving so deliberately toward this goal. They got scared we could take the lead on a major issue and threw this over to us ... there was a stampede of one-upmanship," McConnell said.