The legal landscape in Georgia has long been a point of contention among business leaders, policymakers, and legal professionals. In 2005, the Georgia General Assembly enacted sweeping tort reform legislation, including a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. However, the following year, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down those caps, ruling them unconstitutional. In 2010, the court unanimously reaffirmed this position, holding that such limits violated the constitutional right to a trial by jury. The court emphasized that this right inherently includes the ability to recover the full measure of damages as determined by a jury.
Since then, Georgia has gained a reputation as a “judicial hellhole,” with businesses citing excessive litigation as a significant concern. Between 2018 and 2023, the state recorded 39 nuclear verdicts in personal injury and wrongful death cases, with juries awarding exceptionally high damages. Critics argue that this litigation trend has driven up insurance costs, placing a financial strain on both businesses and consumers. In the past year alone, auto insurance rates in Georgia have surged by 21%, a spike insurers attribute in part to the state’s legal climate. Some insurance companies have even ceased offering coverage in Georgia, exacerbating market instability.
In response to mounting concerns, Gov. Brian Kemp has made comprehensive tort reform a top priority for the 2025 legislative session. His proposed reforms aim to create a more balanced legal environment while preserving Georgia’s economic competitiveness.
Two key bills—Senate Bill 68 and Senate Bill 69—are at the center of the tort reform push. Both measures, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem John F. Kennedy (R-Macon), have been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with hearings expected this week. While the business community has expressed strong support for the proposed changes, trial lawyers have already begun mobilizing against them, voicing concerns about potential restrictions on plaintiffs’ rights.
Kemp has underscored his commitment to seeing these reforms enacted, signaling his willingness to call a special session if necessary. While Republican leaders in both chambers are firmly behind the initiative, Democratic lawmakers have expressed skepticism, warning of possible unintended consequences. As the bills progress through the legislative process, they are expected to undergo rigorous debate and revisions before reaching a final vote.
Georgia’s tort reform battle is shaping up to be one of the most consequential policy fights of the session, with significant implications for businesses, consumers, and the state’s legal framework.
Senate Bill 68
Damages. The proposed legislation limits recoverable damages in two significant ways: first, it prohibits attorneys from arguing for or eliciting testimony referencing any specific amount for noneconomic damages; secondly, it limits medicals to only the damages paid out to a provider, not billed by that provider.
Civil Procedure. Under the bill, if a party files a motion to dismiss before or at the time of filing an answer, discovery is automatically stayed until the court rules on the motion. If the court has not ruled within 90 days, a party may request the court to terminate or modify the discovery stay for good cause. This effectively delays and possibly precludes unnecessary discovery costs in frivolous matters that are highly deserving of early dismissal.
Voluntary Dismissal. The bill alters the timeline for plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss a case without prejudice. If enacted, plaintiffs must file a written notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This marks a significant departure from current law, which allows dismissal at any time before the first witness is sworn in.
Litigation Costs. The proposed legislation prohibits parties from recovering the same attorney’s fees, court costs, or litigation expenses more than once.
Seat Belt Admissibility. In a significant shift from current law, Senate Bill 68 permits judges and juries to consider seat belt usage as evidence at trial; the evidence may be admitted for purposes of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, or fault apportionment. However, the bill explicitly states that insurance companies cannot use a driver’s failure to wear a seat belt as grounds for canceling coverage or increasing policy rates.
Premises Liability. The bill refines the liability standards for landowners and occupiers regarding negligent security. Owners or occupiers may be held liable for injuries to invitees for a third party’s wrongful conduct in one of two ways – first, they may be liable if they had received a particularized warning; alternatively, they may be held liable if the wrongful conduct was reasonably foreseeable and the wrongful conduct exploited a known physical condition of the premises. For licensees, liability applies if the owner or occupier had specific warning of imminent wrongful conduct, took no action to mitigate the risk, and this failure led to the injury where, again, the wrongful conduct that caused the injury exploited a known physical condition of the property. However, landowners and occupiers are not liable for injuries sustained by trespassers, individuals off the premises, or those harmed by tenants or their guests when eviction proceedings have begun. The bill also clarifies that property owners are not required to provide extraordinary security measures or assume the responsibilities of law enforcement, though courts will consider existing security measures at the time of an incident.
Trial Bifurcation. The trial process will be divided into two phases. In the first phase, the trier of fact determines the defendant’s liability and assigns a percentage of fault to each defendant. If liability is established, the trial moves to the second phase, where compensatory damages are calculated and awarded to the plaintiff.
Senate Bill 69
Litigation Financing. Litigation financing is prohibited unless the financing entity
registers with Georgia’s Department of Banking and Finance. The bill specifies the
required registration information and imposes strict restrictions on litigation
financiers. They are barred from affiliating with any foreign person, foreign
principal, or sovereign wealth fund associated with adversarial nations such as China
and Russia.
Additionally, litigation financiers cannot exert direct influence over legal
proceedings, including decisions regarding legal representation, expert witnesses, or
litigation strategy. They are also prohibited from paying, offering, or accepting
commissions, referral fees, or other financial incentives, which majorly impacts the
third-party industry. If a litigation financier provides funding, they are jointly and
severally liable for any award issued against the funded party.
This law does not apply to nonprofit entities that provide litigation financing for
themselves or their members.
Violations of this law carry significant penalties, including felony charges with
potential prison time, fines, or both. However, a judge or jury may recommend
reducing the charge to a misdemeanor. The bill also grants the attorney general or
an appropriate prosecuting attorney the authority to initiate criminal proceedings
against violators.
Furthermore, the proposed legislation allows parties to obtain discovery of the
existence and terms of any litigation financing agreement. However, the extent to
which this information may be used in court remains unclear.
