COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCBD) – Alex Murdaugh on Wednesday petitioned the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina for a stay in a case brought by the company that formerly provided Murdaugh’s insurance coverage. The once-prominent Hampton County attorney argued that should be be compelled to provide information in that case, he could incriminate himself or complicate proceedings in one of the many other cases against him.

The case was brought by Nautilus Insurance Company in April of 2022 after the company was subpoenaed by a Grand Jury in connection to Murdaugh’s financial crimes.

Nautilus is the company that provided Murdaugh’s insurance, including the wrongful death settlement after the death of Murdaugh’s former housekeeper Gloria Satterfield, who died after allegedly tripping and falling down the stairs at Murdaugh’s home. Murdaugh embezzled the over $4M that was supposed to go to Satterfield’s sons.

A suit has been brought against Murdaugh by the Satterfield Estate, and Nautilus is also seeking damages for Murdaugh’s defrauding of the company.

In Murdaugh’s latest motion for a stay, he argues that a state case against him for the same crimes conflicts with his ability to testify.


“If a stay is not granted, Murdaugh’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination will be prejudiced. He will be forced to either waive his Fifth Amendment privilege and respond to the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, and otherwise participate in discovery regarding these claims, or assert his privilege, which will be used against him in this civil litigation through an adverse evidentiary inference,” the motion asserts.

Essentially, Murdaugh is arguing that he should not be simultaneously criminally prosecuted and civilly sued for the same crimes.

The motion claims that if Murdaugh provides discovery for the civil case, it could be used against him in the criminal case. However, if he pleads the Fifth in the criminal case, it could be used against him in the civil case since “in a civil proceeding, a fact-finder is entitled to draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s invocation of the privilege against self incrimination.”