COLUMBIA, S.C. - The South Carolina Senate and House approved major legislation limiting lawsuits Wednesday.

The House gave second reading to a bill that puts restrictions on lawsuits stemming from business dealings, shoddy housing construction among other issues. About nine hours later, the Senate approved limits on medical malpractice lawsuits.

The House bill was approved by a 101-15 vote that came after two hours of debate and little opposition. Earlier in the day, Gov. Mark Sanford held a news conference urging legislators to move quickly on the bill - one of his key agenda items.

Under the proposal:

_ People could sue only in counties where they live or where an accident or damage occurred.

_ The time limit consumers have to sue for shoddy construction or other housing defects would be cut to eight years from 13.

_ Defendants would be responsible only for their part of a problem. Currently, the company with the most assets can be required to pay the biggest share of a damage award when more than one defendant is involved.

_ There would be penalties for frivolous lawsuits.

"This is a major transforming change in the way cases are tried in the state," House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, R-Spartanburg, said.

But the transformation some praised will cause big problems for people with minor or major lawsuits, Rep. James Smith, D-Columbia, said.

People who are injured in accidents will get a fraction of what their damages were, Smith said.

For instance, a family whose loved one is killed by a logging truck will be locked into recovering damages primarily from the driver, not the logging company who employs the driver.

The bill says "we don't believe in making injured innocent parties whole again," Smith said.

Sanford gathered business and health care leaders in his office Wednesday morning to call for quick action on lawsuit legislation before the House and Senate.

The Georgia Legislature's passage of similar legislation on Monday made the task more urgent because the states compete for jobs and economic growth, Sanford said. With Georgia, there are 28 states that have some type of cap on lawsuit settlements.

"There is a revolution going on around us," Sanford said.

The malpractice and civil lawsuit bills have broad support among businesses and health care providers.

Current laws have hurt the state's ability to increase incomes and have "given us a black eye among our neighboring states," said Hunter Howard, chief executive of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.

The House's action came as the Senate entered the second day of a filibuster against a bill aimed at limiting awards in medical malpractice cases. That bill sets a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages such as pain and suffering.

"As of Monday night, Georgia's a better place to practice medicine than South Carolina," said Dr. John Evans, president of the South Carolina Medical Association.

Georgia legislators put a $350,000 cap on pain and suffering awards.

In South Carolina, supporters wanted a $250,000 cap on those non-economic damages. That became a stumbling block that tied up the Senate debate and turned into a full-blown filibuster on Tuesday.

Supporters tried to break the filibuster Wednesday evening by forcing senators to stay in the Senate chambers. But even then, they lacked the votes to end it.

That forced both sides to negotiate more. By 10 p.m., a deal had been reached.

The cap would be lifted to $350,000 on non-economic damages. However, an exception would allow people bringing lawsuits to seek as much as $1.1 million from a combination of up to three defendants.

No one was "enamored with everything in here," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said.

The agreement they reached gave the legislation second reading with a 45-0 vote. The bill will get final reading Thursday. It also killed dozens amendments that supporters feared could scuttle the bill.

"I think Georgia's action Monday helped us," Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, said.

That helped people get accustomed to the notion of a $350,000 cap, said Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat who helped lead the filibuster.

In most cases, the change means people will see $700,000 in pain-and-suffering awards, said Ken Suggs, a Columbia trial lawyer.

For Sanford the day ended with key agenda items surging forward. "Both chambers took solid steps toward making our state more competitive," Sanford's spokesman Will Folks said late Wednesday night.