House passes sprinkler sign bill

e-mail this story Related Previous coverage • Toddler, mom perished in hotel blaze • Six perish, 12 injured in fire at Comfort Inn • Comfort Inn to reopen after fire killed six guest in 2004 Related Web site • Read the legislation Photo gallery • Photos from the fire

The sprinkler sign bill was authored by Sen. David Thomas of Greenville, who wanted hotel guests to at least know how well they were protected.

Nancy Smith, who lost a foster daughter in the 2004 Comfort Inn fire, said she doubted hotel guests would see the sign. She said the Legislature's failure to enact stronger legislation is due to a lack of personal experience with fire tragedies.

"Death changed my whole attitude about staying in hotels," she said. "Because I have a personal investment. And those legislators don't."

Thomas said he would recommend the Senate accept the House version, which could send the bill to Gov. Mark Sanford this week.

"Hopefully it will save lives," he said.

The January 2004 fire had originally sparked much stronger legislation that required sprinklers in most hotels. But the bill suffocated last year as some legislators complained that requiring sprinklers would be too costly for many smaller hotels and historic structures.

The five-story Comfort Inn & Suites on Congaree Road was built in 1988 without sprinklers, which weren't required then. Now all new buildings more than three stories tall must have sprinklers.

The fire started on the third floor as a winter storm pelted Greenville the morning of Jan. 25, 2004. Six people were killed in the blaze and 12 were injured. Authorities believe the fire was deliberately set and are treating the deaths as homicides.

The bill requires hotels without sprinkler systems, beginning July 2006, to post a sign at or near the registration desk that states, "This building meets local fire and building codes and is not required by law to have a fire sprinkler system."

Thomas' bill originally called for insurance companies to inform hotels not using sprinklers what they could save if they used the devices. It also provided penalties of up to $2,500 per day for not posting the signs.

But the House committee that looked at the bill stripped it of the insurance requirement and dropped the fines to a maximum of $200 per day.

Even so, Thomas said he was pleased the House passed the bill on second reading Tuesday. Some lawmakers complained during debate Tuesday that even the sign requirement was "onerous" to businesses, which they said must already post other signs for hotel guests to read.

"You're telling the private sector what to do," Rep. Harry "Chip" Limehouse of Charleston told other lawmakers.

Charleston lawmakers had complained last year about the sprinkler requirement, arguing it would be unfair to require it for historic hotels and the many bed and breakfast inns that dot the Charleston area.

Limehouse tried to amend the bill with a requirement that would have exempted any hotel three stories or less. But the amendment failed and the House eventually passed the bill 76-21.

Smith said she just returned from a cross-country trip in which she never stayed above the second floor or in a hotel without sprinklers.

"It comes down to who you lose, what does it cost me," she said. "The legislators don't have anything invested personally in it. They don't have any emotional bond. They just see the business end of it. And I probably would have too before all of this."