Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has made tort reform a priority for the 2025-26 legislative session. That agenda appears to be advancing, with changes on the way. What are the issues?
The Movement for Tort Reform in Georgia
Critics argue that Georgia's current laws allow jury verdicts that are too high and incentivize frivolous lawsuits. Georgia's loose restrictions on personal injury lawsuits, they argue, are making insurance costs for businesses and property owners skyrocket.
For example, the American Tort Reform Foundation, a national group dedicated to making personal injury laws more business-friendly, has called Georgia a "judicial hellhole." It, and other critics, have pointed to Georgia's frequent "nuclear verdicts" (civil awards of over $10 million or more) and Georgia's seat-belt gag law, which doesn't allow evidence about a plaintiff's choice not to wear a seat-belt to be used in civil cases. The latter was recently addressed by Senate Bill 68, which leaves it up to the judge on a case-by-case basis.
The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, by contrast, argues that jury verdicts are not the largest driver of rising insurance costs, telling the Associated Press that “insurance companies have continued to raise premiums despite making record profits.”
This has led to a contentious attempt at reform. Still, Governor Kemp saw the second part of his tort reform plan, Senate Bill 69, pass through the Georgia House of Representatives on March 27, 2025. And unlike the first tort reform bill, Kemp didn't have to threaten his fellow GOP lawmakers with getting primaried if they didn't vote for it.
Senate Bill 69 is an attempt to address insurance prices for Georgia businesses and medical providers. It focuses on limiting the influence of third-party litigation and making their involvement more transparent. It also bans foreign governments and investors from becoming third-party litigation financiers.
Given the political upheaval from the tumultuous journey to passage that Senate Bill 68 caused, the relatively easy approval of Senate Bill 69 was likely a relief for Kemp. It now heads for his desk to be signed into law, but it remains to be seen if the fallout from Senate Bill 68's passage has been fully resolved. First, though, let's get into specifics about SB 69.
Canceling Reservations for Third Parties
Senate Bill 69 limits and regulates the influence of third-party litigation financing. Third-party litigation funding occurs when an entity that's not one of the parties in a potential case offers financial backing to the would-be plaintiffs. This may allow a case to be taken to trial that might not have otherwise, but some fear it promotes frivolous lawsuits and call it predatory in nature.
Third-party litigators take the chance of losing their investment if the suit fails, but funding multiple lawsuits as an investment strategy has been gaining popularity. Under Senate Bill 69, third-party investors will have to register with the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance. It will also reduce the effect and influence the funders can have on the proceedings of the civil litigation. It does not prohibit all third-party funding, good news for law firms hoping to get financial assistance with the costs of bringing a lengthy lawsuit.
The bill also puts crosshairs on foreign governments and adversaries, banning them from assuming a role as a third-party litigation funder. Senate Bill 69 received a unanimous vote in the Senate and a bipartisan vote in the House, a stark contrast to the first part of Kemp's plan.
Real Nice Assembly Seat You Got There, Be a Shame if Something Happened to It
Senate Bill 68 had a much rockier ride before being signed into law. One provision of SB 68 limits the amount a plaintiff can receive for lawsuits alleging negligent security. Opponents alleged it would aid human and sex traffickers, among other criminals, since business owners might be more willing to turn a blind eye toward criminal behavior on their properties. But proponents argue it is necessary to keep insurance costs manageable for property owners, including for low-income residential properties, which insurers can be wary of covering due to concerns over liability.
SB 68 makes bifurcating trials easier, which means splitting the liability and damages proceedings. It also limits testimony regarding pain and suffering damages.
Unsure of whether Senate Bill 68 had enough support, Kemp threatened to primary GOP lawmakers who didn't vote for it. One GOP Representative lost his job as a county Chamber of Congress CEO as a result of not supporting Senate Bill 68. Democrats had harsh words for their party members who voted for the bill. But it did pass.
Tort reform remains a hot-button issue in many states. Georgia, for one, appears primed to attempt to limit personal injury settlements in the state.
Related Resources
- What Is the "Seat Belt Defense"? (FindLaw's Accidents and Legal Injury Guide)
- Civil Court Basics (FindLaw's Litigation and Appeals)
- Torts and Personal Injury Law (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
