As autonomous vehicles (AVs) begin to appear on roads across North and South Carolina, the legal frameworks surrounding them are evolving rapidly. New insurance and liability structures that aim to regulate this growing technology are being proposed. But these proposed changes may leave gaps in coverage—especially when serious injuries are involved.
North Carolina may soon allow fully autonomous vehicles to operate statewide under a new licensing and insurance system. This includes a safety plan filing requirement and mandates at least one million dollars in liability coverage per vehicle. However, it leaves many questions unanswered, particularly regarding how damages should be allocated among manufacturers, software developers, and human occupants in the event of an accident.
Meanwhile, South Carolina may restructure joint and several liability in multi-defendant cases. However, there could be a cap on manufacturer liability at $2 million per incident. Any excess damages would be paid through a no-fault state fund financed by a per-vehicle fee.
These developments signal a significant shift in how personal injury claims involving AVs could be handled. For a Carolina personal injury lawyer, understanding how these evolving statutes may influence case strategy is essential.
An evolving legal landscape
While liability is not defined in every scenario, it lays the groundwork for a new model of automotive accountability. As rules on insurance coverage and licensing are defined, attorneys must adapt their approach to protect clients involved in AV-related incidents.
One of the most pressing concerns is whether existing or proposed coverage minimums are sufficient. In multi-vehicle or pedestrian injury cases, the $1–2 million limits proposed in both states may not fully compensate for severe or long-term damages. This potential “insurance gap” means injury lawyers must prepare to act swiftly and strategically to ensure clients receive adequate compensation.
Early action matters: securing crucial evidence
Autonomous vehicles generate vast amounts of sensor data, which may play a vital role in personal injury litigation. These systems log decisions, visual inputs, and operational commands that can shed light on how and why an accident occurred.
For this reason, legal professionals should prioritize securing AV data as early as possible after a collision. Issuing data preservation letters or pursuing temporary restraining orders can help preserve critical evidence by preventing over-the-air software updates. Delays could result in overwritten or lost data, which is key to the outcome of the case.
Strategic defendant inclusion and claim structuring
Personal injury attorneys are encouraged to include all potentially liable parties in their initial claims. This could consist of manufacturers, software developers, tier-one suppliers, and remote operators.
Filing broadly at the outset ensures flexibility in the event that liability caps or amendments reduce the scope of recoverable damages later. It also provides additional leverage during settlement negotiations, particularly if defendants anticipate higher risk under future legal interpretations.
In multi-defendant cases, especially those involving complex product design, establishing a chain of responsibility is essential. Even under revised joint and several liability standards, correctly identifying each contributor to the injury strengthens the likelihood of fair compensation.
Jurisdiction and timing: key to legal strategy
Filing location and timing can significantly impact the outcome of a case. Because neither North nor South Carolina’s laws are yet in flux, attorneys may have an opportunity to bring cases under more favorable current laws. Understanding the court system, procedural timelines, and historical verdict patterns in each jurisdiction enables attorneys to determine when and where to file their cases effectively.
A well-timed case filed before the enactment of statutory caps may secure higher recoveries than one litigated under a newly limited framework.
Insurance ambiguities: what does coverage include?
Another concern is the lack of clarity regarding the types of damages that must be covered under mandatory AV insurance. Neither North Carolina nor South Carolina makes clear whether the required policies must account for punitive damages, which are often sought in cases involving gross negligence or flawed system design.
Ambiguities like this can lead to significant delays in litigation, as insurance carriers may challenge the scope of their responsibilities. Legal teams should prepare themselves to interpret emerging rules in real-time and develop arguments that support broader coverage interpretations.
Long-term compensation strategies
Even when liability is limited, personal injury attorneys can take steps to safeguard client recovery. Structuring settlements to include reversionary medical trusts, for example, can help cover future care costs that might not be reimbursed under evolving rules.
These trusts ensure that if clients later receive compensation from a no-fault state fund, it is directed toward their ongoing needs rather than being returned to insurance carriers or left in legal limbo.
Looking ahead: the role of proactive legal practice
The regulatory environment for AVs is still taking shape. While federal standards may one day unify rules across state lines, current developments in Raleigh and Columbia offer a glimpse into how injury law may evolve in response to rapid technological change.
For personal injury attorneys, vigilance is essential. By understanding new liability structures and acting promptly to secure evidence, lawyers can more effectively advocate for those injured in collisions involving autonomous vehicles.
The legal field may not yet have all the answers—but those who prepare today will be better positioned to guide clients in an increasingly automated future.
The information provided in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended as legal, financial, medical, or professional advice. Readers should not rely solely on the content of this article and are encouraged to seek professional advice tailored to their specific circumstances. We disclaim any liability for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from the use of, or reliance on, the information presented.
VentureBeat newsroom and editorial staff were not involved in the creation of this content.
