South Carolina Repair-Attempt Presumption (3 attempts / 30 days OOS)

South Carolina applies the “reasonable number of attempts” presumption under S.C. Code § 56-28-30 when the manufacturer has failed to repair a nonconformity. SC uses a straight 3-attempt threshold — among the more consumer-favorable presumption structures — without the separate “final manufacturer attempt” requirement found in Alabama § 8-20A-2(b).

The two presumption pathways

A consumer establishes the “reasonable number of attempts” presumption under § 56-28-30 by showing either:

Pathway 1 — Three attempts

• The same nonconforming condition has been subject to three or more repair attempts by the manufacturer or its agents; AND
• Within the express warranty term.

Pathway 2 — 30 cumulative OOS days

• The motor vehicle is out of service due to repair attempts; AND
• For a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar days during the express warranty.

Why SC’s straight 3-attempt structure is consumer-favorable

SC joins the 3-attempt tier with:

• Tennessee § 55-24-202(b) — 3 attempts.
• Georgia § 10-1-783(b) — 3 attempts (or single attempt for serious safety defects).
• Massachusetts — 3 attempts.
• Virginia § 59.1-207.13(B)(2) — 3 attempts (or single attempt for serious safety defects).
• Oregon § 646A.402(1)(b)(A) — 3 attempts.

This is more consumer-favorable than 4-attempt states:

• Connecticut, California § 1793.22, Washington, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Louisiana — all 4 attempts.

SC vs Alabama — distinctive structural difference

Alabama § 8-20A-2(b) requires a separate “final manufacturer attempt” after the three dealer attempts — effectively a 4-attempt structure with the fourth at the manufacturer’s option after formal written notice.

South Carolina does NOT require this. Three attempts at the dealer level satisfy the SC presumption directly. No separate manufacturer-level final attempt is needed.

This makes SC’s presumption easier to satisfy than Alabama’s — particularly important because SC’s overall framework has structural weaknesses (manufacturer’s-option remedy, discretionary fees) that the easier presumption partially offsets.

The 30-day OOS pathway in detail

The 30-day pathway under § 56-28-30 is often the faster route to the presumption for severe defects:

• Cumulative count — not consecutive. A vehicle in for repair 10 days in January, 12 days in March, and 9 days in June meets the threshold at 31 cumulative days.
• Calendar days — NOT business days (more conservative than the 30-business-day jurisdictions like Colorado, Massachusetts, Indiana, Missouri, Oregon).
• During the express warranty — must occur within the express warranty term.
• In custody for repair — counts time the vehicle is at the dealer/manufacturer awaiting or undergoing repair.

Within the express warranty term

A critical SC-specific requirement: the repair attempts (or 30-day OOS period) must occur within the express warranty term. This is typically the manufacturer’s basic warranty period — typically 3 years / 36,000 miles or 4 years / 50,000 miles depending on the manufacturer. The 12-month / 12K Lemon Law Rights Period is when the defect must be reported; the express warranty term is when the repair attempts (or OOS days) must occur.

Practical effect:

• Defect reported within first 12 months / 12K (Lemon Law Rights Period).
• Subsequent repair attempts can occur after the 12-month / 12K window but must be within the express warranty term.
• 30 cumulative OOS days similarly counted within the express warranty term.

This gives consumers somewhat longer to accumulate attempts than the Rights Period alone — particularly for defects that first manifest near the end of the Rights Period.

Documentation requirements

To establish either pathway, the consumer needs:

• Repair orders for each attempt — dates, mileage, customer complaint, technician notes, parts replaced.
• Consistent complaint language — same words describing the same nonconformity across visits.
• Days-out-of-service log documenting cumulative count for the 30-day pathway.
• Photographs/video of the recurring defect when possible.
• Communications with dealer service writers / manufacturer customer relations.
• First-report date documenting the defect was first reported within the 12-month / 12K window.

See our documenting evidence guide.

Bottom line

SC’s straight 3-attempt or 30-day OOS presumption under § 56-28-30 is among the more consumer-favorable presumption structures in the country — easier to satisfy than 4-attempt jurisdictions and easier than Alabama’s “3 + final manufacturer attempt” structure. The presumption-strength offsets some of SC’s structural weaknesses (manufacturer’s-option remedy, discretionary fees). The “within the express warranty term” requirement gives consumers somewhat longer accumulation runway than the 12-month / 12K Rights Period alone.

Related

Article

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Federal Overlay for SC Cases)

15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. — Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides federal-court access (D.S.C.), § 2310(d)(2) attorney fees, and a 4-year UCC SOL backstop under S.C. Code § 36-2-725 for South Carolina lemon-law claims.

Read → Article

SC Lemon Law Statute (S.C. Code § 56-28-10)

S.C. Code § 56-28-10 et seq. — Enforcement of Motor Vehicle Express Warranties. Core eligibility, 12-month / 12K express warranty window, MANUFACTURER'S option for refund vs replacement, discretionary § 56-28-50 fees, 3-year SOL.

Read → Article

South Carolina Lemon Law Statute of Limitations

The deadlines on SC lemon-law claims — 3-year Lemon Law SOL (§ 56-28-70), 3-year SCUTPA SOL from discovery (§ 39-5-150), 4-year UCC/Magnuson-Moss SOL (§ 36-2-725).

Read → Article

South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA)

S.C. Code § 39-5-10 et seq. — SCUTPA mandatory treble damages for willful/knowing violations under § 39-5-140(a), mandatory § 39-5-140(a) attorney fees, 3-year SOL, but PUBLIC-INTEREST REQUIREMENT and NO CLASS ACTIONS.

Read →