CAYCE, S.C. — Henry’s of Cayce, located on State Street, has announced its impending closure at the end of January, citing escalating costs associated with a mandated insurance policy. The restaurant specifically mentioned increased expenses related to liquor liability as the primary reason for its decision.
In a statement released on Facebook, the establishment expressed gratitude to both past and present employees for their loyalty, dedication, and hard work over its nearly seven years of operation. The announcement extended appreciation to loyal patrons and supporters, acknowledging their role in the restaurant’s journey. Henry’s of Cayce also took the opportunity to thank the City of Cayce, Mayor Elise Partin, and the Cayce police and fire departments for their ongoing support.
While the closure date was not specified, the restaurant invited patrons to visit during its final weeks, emphasizing gratitude for the community’s support over the years. The announcement was signed by Bennett Brown and Henry Lees.
Though not explicitly mentioned in the Facebook post, the impact of a 2017 law in South Carolina, which mandates businesses with liquor licenses to obtain a minimum of $1 million in coverage, has been a point of contention for restaurants and bars in the state. The law aimed to protect victims of drunk driving and their families, but opponents argue that, coupled with rising insurance rates, it has led to increased operational costs and closures of such establishments.
House Bill 4529, known as the South Carolina Save Our Venues Act, was introduced in 2023 and referred to the judiciary committee, where it remains. The bill, also listed in the 2023-2024 session, proposes to shield businesses from liability for injury, death, or damage caused by an individual who becomes overly intoxicated, provided the business ceases alcohol sales to that person beyond a reasonable level.
Despite calls for amendments to the law, some, like Sen. Dick Harpootlian, argue that the focus should be on holding insurance companies accountable rather than altering the legislation. Harpootlian suggested that if insurance companies choose to withdraw coverage, the state’s insurance department should consider restrictions similar to those implemented in Florida.
