ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

) FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF HAMPTON ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2021-CP-25-00298

Michael “Tony” Satterfield and Brian )

Harriott, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN
) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RICHARD
vs. ) ALEXANDER “ALEX” MURDUAGH’S
) MOTION TO DISMISS
Richard Alexander “Alex” Murdaugh, )
Chad Westendorf, Palmetto State Bank, )
Corey Fleming, and Moss, Kuhn & )
Fleming, P.A., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

Defendant Richard Alexander “Alex” Murdaugh’s (‘Murdaugh”) fatally flawed Motion to

Dismiss (“Motion”) is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic – it will not change the

outcome. First, the Motion ignores South Carolina black letter law as codified in the South

Carolina Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasor’s Act (the “Act”) in that it seeks to apply a “pre-

set-off” of the monies received to date by the Plaintiffs in order to contend that the Plaintiffs are

without damages, when the law is quite clear that the evaluation of an entitlement to set-off is

something that occurs post-verdict and prejudgment. The Motion further confuses Murdaugh’s

right to assert the 5th Amendment in his parallel criminal proceeding as an obligation to assert the

5th Amendment, and posits the misguided theory that Murdaugh’s election to exercise his 5th

Amendment right controls over the Plaintiffs’ right to prosecute their civil claims. For the reasons

set forth herein, Murdaugh’s Motion must fail.

1
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298
1. PRE-SET-OFF 1

Through his Motion, Murdaugh unilaterally and arbitrarily sets the Plaintiffs’ potential

damages for claims against himself and/or others at $4,305,000.00 (ie. the amount of the settlement

proceeds that were stolen and/or misapplied following claims arising from the death of Gloria

Satterfield). Because the Plaintiffs have now recovered from other tortfeasors an amount “more

than $6 million,” Murdaugh contends that “therefore Plaintiffs’ only potential for recovery against

Murdaugh is on their claim for punitive damages.” Both of these statements are incorrect. 2

Murdaugh both misapprehends the proper calculation of Plaintiffs’ damages and misconstrues the

application of the Act.

On May 13, 2019, the Honorable Carmen Mullen signed an Order approving a settlement

in the amount of $4,305,000.00 in the underlying litigation. (See Judge Mullen’s signed 5-13-19

Order attached as Exhibit A). 3 Murdaugh and his other joint tortfeasors took all of the money –

every last dime. As a result, the $4,305,000.00 of losses does not represent the ceiling of Plaintiffs’

damages – it is the floor. Murdaugh cannot argue that because others paid for the money he

stole, he is entitled to a get out of jail free card. The misappropriated settlement funds only begin

to tell the story.

In addition to the baseline damages of $4,305,000.00, other damages include:

A. Lost Investment Use of the Funds: Since May 13, 2019, the Plaintiffs have been denied
the use of the $4,305,000.00. According to the Dow Jones–10 year daily chart from May
13, 2019 to November 19, 2021, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased from
25,324.99 to 35,870.95 points, or an increase of 41.64 percent. If the Plaintiffs had invested
the $4,305,000.00 in an index fund that tracked the Dow Jones Industrial Average, they

1
As per Murdaugh’s motion to dismiss, “… South Carolina law prohibits Plaintiffs from obtaining a double recovery
for the same injury, Defendant Murdaugh is entitled to a credit for the more than $6 Million paid by all other settling
tortfeasors against any judgment Plaintiffs may be awarded for damages against him. S.C. Code §15-38-50; Huck v.
Oakland Wings, LLC, 422 S.C. 430, 436, 813 S.E.2d 288, 291 (Ct. App. 2018); Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 312,
536 S.E.2d 408, 425 (Ct. App. 2000) (citing Powers v. Temple, 250 S.C. 149, 155, 156 S.E.2d 759, 761 (1967)”
2
Plaintiffs have recovered in excess of $7 million to date.
3
This settlement compromised $505,000.00 from Lloyd’s Underwriters and $3,800,000 from Nautilus Ins. Co. The
settlement was divided $4,255,000.00 for the wrongful death claim and $50,000.00 for the survival claim.

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298
would have an additional $1,792,602.00. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the lost investment
opportunity of their money. 4

B. Taxable Event: Also, Murdaugh, and his joint tortfeasors, have potentially turned a non-
taxable event (ie. the Plaintiffs’ inheritance of their deceased Mother’s estate) into a taxable
event, the recovery of funds as the result of litigation. The current South Carolina income
tax rate is seven (7%) percent and the top federal tax rate for individuals is thirty seven
(37%) percent for taxable income above $523,600.00 for tax year 2021. Thus, the Plaintiffs
may now have to pay income taxes as follows:

a. South Carolina income tax: $301,350.00; and

b. Federal income tax: $1,399,118.00.

The Plaintiffs are entitled to these amounts at a minimum, as well as all taxes they pay as
a result of their total future recovery which is yet to be determined; thus, this figure may
increase. 5

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ adjusted actual damages total $7,798,070.00. 6 This number

becomes the new floor and is subject to increases as follows:

A. South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act: The Plaintiffs are entitled to the payment of
attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act
(“SCUTPA”). 7 Additionally, if the Court finds the violation of SCUPTA was a “willful or
knowing violation of Section 39-5-20,” 8 then the Plaintiffs shall be entitled to treble
damages. Thus, success of this legal theory would entitle the Plaintiffs to $23,394,210.00,
plus attorneys’ fees and costs which amounts are still to be determined.

B. Punitive Damages: In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 US 559 (1996), the United
States Supreme Court set the standard for the assessment of punitive damages. Punitive
damages cannot be “grossly excessive” and to determine that standard the Court must
examine (i) the degree of reprehensibility 9; (ii) the disparity between the harm suffered
and the punitive damage award; and (iii) the difference between this remedy and civil
penalties authorized in comparable cases. In South Carolina, the standard for the
calculation of punitive damages has changed over the years, but it is generally accepted
that is must be a single-digit multiplier applied to the actual damages. Clearly Murdaugh’s
conduct is beyond reprehensible and is punishable by punitive damages. Applying

4
This category of damages is similar to a loss time value of money calculation from 5-13-19 to the present.
5
Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover the taxes they will have to pay on these two tax figures, etc., etc. Also, if the
top federal tax bracket increases in the coming years, a possibility which has been reported on in the media, this
amount will increase.
6
In their filings the Plaintiffs also seek their attorneys’ fees and costs related to this litigation a figure which is still
to be determined.
7
S.C. Code Ann. §39-5-10, et al.
8
S.C. Code Ann. §39-5-140.
9
Emphasis supplied.

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298
conservatively a five time punitive multiplier, Murdaugh’s damages exposure is
$38,990,350.00. 10

It is not Murdaugh’s place to declare the Plaintiffs “whole” and announce that the lawsuit

against him is over. The issue presented by Murdaugh is when and how to apply a set-off for sums

recovered from others against his ultimate liability and the answer is found clearly in the Act and

the case law interpreting the Act.

Among joint tortfeasors, a non-settling defendant is entitled to credit for the amount paid

by another defendant who settles. The reason for allowing such a credit is to prevent an injured

person from obtaining a second recovery of that part of the amount of damages sustained which

has already been paid to him. In other words, there can be only one satisfaction for an injury or

wrong. However, the reduction in the judgment must be from a settlement for the same cause of

action. Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 312-13, 536 S.E.2d 408, 425 (Ct. App. 2000) (citations

omitted); see also Rutland v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 400 S.C. 209, 216, 734 S.E.2d 142, 145

(2012) ("A non-settling defendant is entitled to credit for the amount paid by another defendant

who settles for the same cause of action."). A settlement by a joint tortfeasor "reduces the claim

against the others to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the covenant." Therefore,

before entering judgment on a jury verdict, the court must reduce the amount of the verdict

to account for any funds previously paid by a settling defendant, so long as the settlement

funds were paid to compensate the same plaintiff on a claim for the same injury. Smith v.

Widener, 397 S.C. 468, 471-72, 724 S.E.2d 188, 190 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting S.C. Code Ann. §

15-38-50(1) (2005)). Emphasis Supplied.

Much to Murdaugh’s chagrin, he will have to wait until the jury speaks, evaluate the verdict

(if any) that issues and then determine whether prior settlements were obtained on the same cause

10
However, the jury may use more than a five time multiplier.

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298
of action and whether he is entitled to an off-set for the amounts paid. To seek dismissal now is

improper.

2. THE 5TH AMENDMENT 11

In this legally unsupportable defense, Murdaugh attempts to use his own illegal conduct as

a shield against claims in the civil litigation. 12 While he has invoked his 5th Amendment rights in

the civil action brought against him by his former law firm, Murdaugh wants more here. He seeks

now to use his 5th Amendment right to dismiss the action or alternatively to hide 13 behind its

protection long enough in a hope that Plaintiffs’ case will deteriorate 14 over time as memories

diminishes and the intense spotlight fades. By his motion, Murdaugh seems to misunderstand that

the 5th Amendment is a right that he may invoke – but not a right that he must invoke. It is also a

right that affords him protection in a criminal setting, but not a shield to hide behind in a civil

matter.

Rules 16 and 40 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure grant the Court the

authority and discretion to manage the pendency of cases both in the discovery process and

throughout the pendency on the docket system. South Carolina Appellate Courts have opined that

the granting or refusing of a stay is discretionary and should be exercised with caution 15 after

11
Murdaugh has two grounds under this theory. First, per Rule 12(b)(8) dismiss all claims because Murdaugh has
been charged with two counts of obtaining goods under false pretenses in violation of S.C. Code section 16-13-240.
Second, Murdaugh also moved “… to stay this action until the criminal proceedings are terminated. Courts have the
inherent power to stay civil litigation where there is a simultaneous criminal proceeding. Landis v. North American
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936); Poston v. Home Insurance Co. N.Y., 191 S.C. 314, 4 S.E.
2d 261 (1939).”
12
“That defendant’s conduct also resulted in a criminal charge against him should not be availed of by him as a shield
against a civil suit and prevent plaintiffs from expeditiously advancing their claim.” Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis,
Inc. v. Andrus, 486 F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
13
“A civil defendant cannot hide behind a blanket invocation of the 5th Amendment privilege.” Koester v. American
Republic Investments, Inc., 11 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 1993).
14
“A party is not entitled to delay resolution of a civil action, even to accommodate her 5th Amendment interests, if
he adversary’s case will deteriorate as a result of the stay.” In re Phillips, Beckwith & Hall, 896 F. Supp. 553, 559
(E.D. Va. 1995)
15
Emphasis is supplied throughout by the use of bold and underline.

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298
balancing the competing interests. Carolina Water Service Inc. v. Lexington County Joint

Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, 367 SC 141, 153, 625 S.E.2d 227, 233 (Ct. App. 2006)

Forcing an individual to risk non-criminal disadvantage by remaining silent for fear of self-

incrimination in a parallel criminal proceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional

infringement. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). The Constitution does not

guarantee that the exercise of 5th Amendment rights will be without cost in the civil arena. A party

who chooses to assert the privilege against self-incrimination in a civil case must live with the

consequences, and if this be seen as a ‘price’ on the assertion of the privilege. United States v.

Taylor, 945 F.2d 402, 404 (7th Cir. 1992); see also U.S. v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 758-59; In re

Grand Jury Subpoena (Under Seal), 836 F.2d 1468, 1472 & n. 4 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S.

1240 (1988).

The true reason Murdaugh has raised this issue is he seeks to avoid the trier of fact, the

jury, from drawing an adverse inference from his refusal to testify. This is the 5th Amendment

“price” Murdaugh wishes to avoid paying. It is not surprising, and is in keeping with his character,

that Murdaugh does not want to pay anyone anything. The equation here is easy: Murdaugh has

the absolute right to plead the 5th Amendment to any question that may be asked of him in this

civil action – if he chooses to do so, Judge and jury may infer that the answer to the question would

have been harmful to his defense of the civil action – this is the price of exercising the right. Of

course, he could always just choose to answer the questions as well. Again, the right to refuse to

answer questions for fear of self-incrimination is a right – not an obligation. It is again noteworthy

that Murdaugh has already pled the 5th Amendment in his answer to Peters, Murdaugh, Parker,

Eltzroth & Detrick, P.A. complaint in Civile Action No.:2021-CP-15-00603 filed on November

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298
12, 2021. (See Answer at paragraph four attached as Exhibit B). Obviously, Murdaugh knows the

rules of road. He just doesn’t want to follow them.

The United States Constitution does not require a stay of civil proceedings pending the

outcome of related criminal proceedings. SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C.

Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 (1980). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights

of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [criminal and civil] proceedings are

unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” SEC v. Dressler, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir.

1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 (1980).

Although the Fourth Circuit 16 has not adopted an explicit set of factors to consider when

determining whether to implement a stay, at least one court within the Fourth Circuit has applied

a five-factor test adopted by a variety of courts across the country. In Ashworth v. Albers Med.,

Inc., 229 F.R.D. 527 (S.D.W.Va.2005), the Court applied the following factors when determining

whether to grant a motion to stay:

(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with [the] litigation or any
particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay;

(2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants;

(3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of
judicial resources;

(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and

(5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation 17.

A review of these five factors all favor the Plaintiffs and require this Court to deny

16
Since our Rules of Procedure are based on the Federal Rules, where there is no South Carolina law, we look to the
construction placed on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See H. Lightsey & J. Flanagan, South Carolina Civil
Procedure, (2d ed. 1985); see also Gardner v. Newsome Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. 304 S.C. 328, 404 S.E.2d 200 (1991).
17
In Reeves v. Town of Cottageville, Case No. 2:12-cv-02765-DCN United States District Court Judge Norton of
South Carolina quoted the same ruling in an Order dated April 12, 2013.

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298
Murdaugh’s request to dismiss or delay the civil litigation. After all, justice delayed is justice

denied. Plaintiff’s Mother passed away in February 2018. They should have received their

$4,305,000.00 on May 13, 2019, and now over two years later Murdaugh wants to keep them

waiting. This is not justice and it is not fair. The burden on Murdaugh is a burden of his own

creation. The true burden is on the Plaintiffs as they are the ones that must prove their case by a

preponderance of the evidence in front of a jury. Delay and obfuscation are the enemies of the

truth as memories fade and Murdaugh’s criminal process meanders through the COVID infected

trial docket. There is simply no convenience to the court to delay this matter. In reality, it is the

exact opposite. The most efficient use of judicial resources would be to fast track this high-profile

matter given the number of Judges that have had to recuse themselves. The interest of persons

not parties to the litigation again favors speed verse delay. The public is waiting and watching to

see how South Carolina Courts will handle a once powerful and influential attorney. Is there one

system of justice for all or a two-tiered justice system that favors the wealthy and powerful For

all these reasons and more, Murdaugh cannot pass the Ashworth test and his legally unsupportable

motion to dismiss or delay this matter should be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the facts stated herein and the well-established law cited, Murdaugh’s Motion must

be denied. Murdaugh should be made to answer the Complaint and face a jury now.

{SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW}

8
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 23 1:50 PM - HAMPTON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2500298
Columbia, South Carolina BLAND RICHTER, LLP
November 23, 2021 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

s/Eric S. Bland
Eric S. Bland (SC Bar No. 64132)
1500 Calhoun Street
Post Office Box 72
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Telephone803.256.9664
Facsimile 803.256.3056
ericbland@blandrichter.com

s/Ronald L. Richter, Jr.

Ronald L. Richter, Jr. (SC Bar No. 66377)
s/Scott M. Mongillo
Scott M. Mongillo (SC Bar No. 16574)
Peoples Building
18 Broad Street, Mezzanine
Charleston, South Carolina 29401
Telephone 843.573.9900
Facsimile 843.573.0200
ronnie@blandrichter.com
scott@blandrichter.com

9
 EXHIBIT
A

S:I A fE OF SOUTI-I CAROI"INA )

) couRT oF COMMON,PLEAS
COTJNI"Y OF I{AMPTO}'I )

)
In RE: Glo,ria Salterfield ) Dockct Numbor':'
)
)
)
) ORDIIII. AFPITOVING S,Ii TLEI\4ENT
)
)
)
)
)

TFIIS MATTER cou.ies:before the Cpurt otr the verified Fetition o,f'Chacl

W.estendor:lL as Perconal Represe.ntative oIthe Hstate of Gloria Sattedie{d. lt appears tl.lat on

0r- aboui February 2. 201 8. Glor:ia Salter'lleld received irr.iiu'ios atli{.cl falling d'own the fiont stairs

ola Co.lleton Ctrurry, S.o,utlr Calolina rcsidence ownecl tly Richalcl Alexancier Mtrrd,augh and

Margzu:et Murdaugh. IJeccdent G lqr,i a S,attctfi e ld sulrseq uen tl)' cl i ed.

The Petitiorrer asser{s to have a callse of actiou: undcl tlie survival statute. ss15-5-90.

Code ol [-,aws ol'South Carolina. 1976, as amended. and a caluse of actior:r 'lbr,wrongfitl deat]i

tincler $ 1 5-51-1 0, Code ol'[,aws ol'Soulh Caroljna, 1976,, a$ tlrmended'

Ce*ain Unclerwliter:s at [.loyd's. l.ondon ('!Brit Syndicates L.!c!") pruvicteel a

honreou,ner:s liabi,lity policy to t{icliarcl Alexander Mutclauglr. put'suanl to pol,icy nttnrber

ut33032i 01.',526I .

Naut.i|.m Insurernce Ci:nrparr5, provicleti a pets,otral untrella lia-bil'it1, policy to Richald

A I exandct' M uldaugli. pul sttzt ttl to p<rl ini n unibcr PtJ 3 8 5804.
 It is dcnied lly th"e pafiies to bc t'eleased that the inir.rri.es.ancl subscq.uerlt clea,th

suffbred b5r tlre Decedent were the result of airy negiigcnce ot recklcs,sir€ss of a:rry leleasecl

paf$.,

In spite of this denial. nievertheless" and in tlre in:lelest ol'comirromise, Bri.t Syndicates

Ltc,l. and Nautilus'hrsulance Con:pany lrave ol'.fured to pay th:e tolfll sum o,f FOU.R M[[,LION

'I'HREE FIUNDIII]I) IIIVT] TIJQTJSAND AND NOIIOO (S4,3O5,OOO.()O) DOLLARS tO

tlre Petitioner for the benefit of the F;state o{'C.ilor'i,a Satterlield..and th'e s.tartlrtol)l bcneficiarics

of the.l)ecederrt in e;rcharrge, Jior a lrull ancl final Rclease for thc liability covel.age u;,i[l'l rsgsrd

to auy and ali clainrs arising oLlt of the r,l,rongfirl death andlo.r:surtrivorsltip ol'the l)ececlent or

otherwi.se- whieh nrlglrt be asserted. by the Personal Repiesentative.on behalf'of the listate of

Glor:ia Sanerfield ol on behhlf of'the staiutory benel\bi.aties ol'the f)ecedent agairrst llichard

Alexa,nder MurdaLrgh; Mar:ga'et M:ru'datrgh; Nautilus Insurancc Company; Murphy &

Grantlanel,. P.A,: Brit Syndicates L,td.: arrd Cramer. .l'ohrrson. Wiggins & Associates. Lnc..l their

agqnts. se*ant.q. ernplo,rrees. successors. Irc{ils.cxecutcr:'s.adniirristlators and assigns, bec4use ol'

lhe iniur:y to anclsuitrse.q'uerlt deatlr oICIoria SertteLf-leld"

'flre tiet procecds to the Petitioner arc to be allocated as, $4"?55.000.00 to the

wrongfuI death claim and $50"Q00.00 to the sr-rvivdl acti.ot e'lainr'.

l"he Petitioner; Chad Westendort'. as Personal Replesentative of,the Estfie of Glori'a

Satteufielcl.. is represented by Attolney Coly H. ,Flenring of l\zloss. Kuhn & Flerning. P.A. of

Beaufcrrt, South Carolina,

TJre statutor'1,' berrelieiaries of the Decoelcnt are Micl:,ac-l Anthorry Satter{ield and

Br:iair l{an'ion.

s
 The Petitioner'. Chacl Westendotl'. as the Fersonal Representative ot'thc Estatc of

Glsr,ia Sattelfield. has iucrrr:red bitls, costs and expcr,nscs f,or and on beltalflof the DeceClent

and tlre Es:tate. irrcludirrg attomey's i'ees and eosts as cleuoted in the Disburlsenrent Statenr'ent

providucl by elounsel lerr the'fistate. lirhich is attachccl, hercto atrd nlacle a paft hereof as,

D,r'lrihit A. Chad Westcrlclor{]. as the Per.sonal Representative of the F,state ti.f Gloria

Satterfield, agfees that these bills. costs and expenses;sliall be rregotiated and resolved fi,om'

the proceecl^s crf this settlement. ChacJ Westendorfl aS the Petsonal Represerttativq of the

Bstate oliGltiiia.satterfield, statecl that the listate slGloria Satterfisld shall be lesponsible for

paying negotiating and resolving any and all additiorral oittstattdingbills of medical

proviciefs. fiineml expeh'.ses or othe:r providersr. Or govenlnlent agenc'ies. on tiehall'of the

Deeeelent aucl/or the llstale o1'Gloria Sauertielcl. I'he Petiticrner'. Chzrd Westendor,J'. llurther

agrecs tliat the [state will be solely lesponsiLrle fbr negoti:atirrg and res0lluin$ any and all

metlic,al, firneral o-r othcr Iicns held by any and.all thiild"palty'nredical or o.tlrer providers,

sho'nld they exist. and tliat thc'se outstanding bills ancl l'iens ivill be satislied orrt oflthe

proceeds of tlris settlenrent. anc{ that nejtlrer Richard A.lexander lVlurdaugh; Malgalet

lV.fulclaugh; Nautilus lnsuranoe Conrpany; Murphy & Grantland., P,A.; Brit Syndicates L,td.;

Cratrrei:. .loirnsoir. Wiggins & As-soeiates. Iirc.; nor tlicil agents-. s'ervant's. shrplo;rees-

succgsgors. heh:s. cxocuto.rs. adrninistt'atol's^ Q[ asrsi$lr-s r'vill hc resporrsitrle flor atiy oirtlrese

bills" experrses or li,ens:.

The Petitioncr. Clracl W.estenclbrf . stated that hE has carelllly coirsicietedthe facts and
'l'h:o
cirgumstai:rces herein. Petitio.ner. Chad Westendorf. stated th,nt he is,arvare of the

uncerta:inties of't'itigation and believes that thc of'f'ers. uncier the circ'tunstances" ale flair: ancl
eeluita:ble ttnd slrould tre accepted r,vfthotrt tlre aclclitio:na'l dela.y and expense of f'urther

litigation.

Upon lirll consiclemti.on of tltis nratter. it ap,pear:s to thc Cout that the. settlenrent

pio:posals outlitred lier,eirrabove hnd in the Petition ars thir a,nd jr-rsl. and ir;r the best interest of

tlie parties. Aceor'dingl'y. it isl

OIIDERED, ADiIUD,GED AND DECREED that the.settlerent ploposals set tbtth

hereinaborre ar:rd in the,ltetitioner's Petitiotl are apploved. and tllat upon payment of tlrc

anroLurt set forth thetein. the Petitioner. Chad Westenclorf, as Personal l{epreseirtative of the.

f:lstate crt'Cjloria Satter'fielcl. is helebri authoriz$d arrcl dilcctecl. to e\ecllte such clocuments a$i

rnilleffl'ct a {trll and linal Rclease i:i lhvor o,lf l;n1ln* Alexandcr lMulciaurgh: Mzu'garct

Murdaugh; Nautihis lnsumircc Conrpany; Murplry & Glarrtland.. P.A..: Brit Syndicates Ltd.t ancl

Cramei'. Johnsoir, Wiggirls & Associates. Inc;; theil agents, s:ervant$.. enrploy-,ees, successors.

hei$. executors. adrnin.istlators and assigns. frorn anlr and all clainrs ol actions wlratsoevet

arisiug out ofthe irrjury to ahd subsqquenl death oiG'loria Satter{ield

AND IT IS S0 ORDERED. this the J-J-. nruil ,1.*.ilLd,--.2019.

-*--*"u***- in

.. .__- Sourth Calolina.

Presiclhrg .ludge
 SETTLEMENT STATEMENT
Estate of Glor:ia Satterfield v. R. Alexarrder Murdaugh

DA'IE OF INJI.JRY: 02/2812018

Lloyd's Underwriters $505,000.00

Nautilus Ins. Co. 3,800,000.00
-Attorney's Fees (Lloyd's) 168,333.33
-Attomey's fees (Nautilus) r.266.666.67
2,870.000.00

Total Prosecution Expenses $ 105,000.00

Total to Beneficiaries $2,765,000.00

I understand and fully approve the above disbursements; I acknowledge receipt of

the above amount and a copy of this statement. Any hnown or unlcnown medical
bills or expenses, rredical or otherwise, ich are not included above, shall be'paid
by me, the undersigned.

fr
Chad Westendorf, as PR f the Estate o f
Gloria Satterfield

Date: Brl 4,?

 EXHIBIT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 12 12:05 PM - COLLETON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP1500603

B
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF COLLETON FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

PETERS, MURDAUGH, PARKER, Civil Action No.: 2021-CP-15-00603

ELTZROTH & DETRICK, P.A.,

Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
v.

RICHARD ALEXANDER MURDAUGH,

SR.,

Defendant.

Comes Defendant, Richard Alexander Murdaugh, Sr. (“Defendant”), by and through

undersigned counsel, and for his Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint states as follows:

FOR A FIRST DEFENSE

1. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4. Defendant asserts his privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the United

States and South Carolina constitutions and respectfully refuses not to answer the allegations of

Paragraphs 4 through 36.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ James M. Griffin
James M. Griffin (S.C. Bar No. 9995)
GRIFFIN DAVIS LLC
4408 Forest Drive, Suite 300
Columbia, South Carolina 29206
Telephone: 803-744-0800
Facsimile: 803-744-0805
jgriffin@griffindavislaw.com
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Nov 12 12:05 PM - COLLETON - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP1500603
Richard A. Harpootlian (S.C. Bar No. 2725)
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
1410 Laurel Street (29201)
Post Office Box 1090
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
rah@harpootlianlaw.com

Columbia, South Carolina Counsel for Defendant

November 12, 2021