Courtney Harris was arrested on Nov. 5 and charged in an insurance fraud case tied to Enterprise Rent-A-Car after SLED said she presented a false claim for insurance payment of $10,000 or more. She was taken to the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center after the arrest.
The warrant says Harris knowingly made false statements from October 19, 2025, through March 3, 2026. The alleged claim tied to her case totaled $223,176.77, according to the alleged victim, far above the charge threshold.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Case
Harris’s arrest was the second in the Enterprise Rent-A-Car case. SLED said she was implicated as a co-conspirator in a matter involving Shante Bethel, who was charged in October 2026 with forgery of $10,000 or more and related charges.
Bethel allegedly sent a forged medical bill that was purported to come from MUSC Health Columbia, and the false claim was also submitted for insurance payment to Enterprise Rent-A-Car Rental Claims Services. The shared paperwork ties both charges to the same claims process rather than separate disputes.
False Statements To Police
The warrant says Harris allegedly told police and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Rental Claims Services that she did not know the alleged victim, while the warrant also says she made false statements in the claim process. That conflict is central to the case because it goes to whether the claim was built on a false relationship or other false details.
Neither Harris nor Bethel has been tried in court. The arrest leaves the allegation on the record and pushes the case toward the next legal step, where the state will have to prove the statements and the claim were knowingly false.
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center
Harris’s detention at Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center marks the immediate result of the Nov. 5 arrest. For anyone watching the case, the key fact is the size of the alleged claim: $223,176.77.
The unanswered issue is what specific incident or relationship led to the insurance claim against Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Until that is resolved in court, the case rests on the warrant’s timeline, the disputed statements, and the two related arrests already made.
