COLUMBIA--The state Supreme Court has issued a new rule limiting, but not banning, secret settlements in state courts.

The rule will take effect in 90 days unless the General Assembly kills it with a three-fifths vote in each chamber.

Chief Justice Jean Toal said she is confident lawmakers will support the rule.

"I think this represents the overwhelming feeling of legislators I've talked to," she said. "They want an open court system."

The rule sets strict guidelines for state judges on approving secret settlements or sealing documents used in lawsuits.

Under the rule, judges must consider why the public's health or safety would be "best served by sealing the documents."

The rule would allow judges to keep secret "private financial matters" and "sensitive custody issues." Those issues were raised in written comments to the five-member Supreme Court and during a public hearing last week.

Toal said her court "tried to balance our preference for open proceedings ... with legitimate private concerns."

Most lawsuits are settled privately, outside the court.

The rule issued Friday doesn't apply to these types of private agreements, although Toal said judges would have "final say" if parties wanted to enforce the contracts.

Opponents of secret settlements say the practice often prevents the public from learning sooner about health or safety hazards. They also contend the public should be allowed to know the details of settlements approved by tax-financed courts.

But doctors, insurers, lawyers who defend businesses and family attorneys oppose a mandatory ban on settlements.

These defenders say secrecy often is needed to protect such things as trade secrets and sensitive financial and medical information.

Columbia lawyer Thomas Salane, who represents the South Carolina branch of the American Insurance Association, said the rule adopted by the Supreme Court addresses those concerns.

"I think it's a fair rule," Salane said. "I think they're recog-nizing there may be some legitimate reasons why a court might acquiesce to a party's request to seal a settlement agreement or a portion of a settlement agreement."

The rule originally proposed by the court read, "No settlement agreement filed with the court shall be sealed pursuant to this rule."

The final draft of the rule doesn't contain the blanket-ban language. Instead, it sets up a two-step process for judges to approve and seal settlements brought to the court.

While in the past, judges rou-tinely consented to secret settlements, "I think this rule makes it clear those days are over," Toal said.