ATLANTA — After a prolonged period of inaction on reforms to limit civil lawsuits, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Republican legislators are renewing their efforts to implement changes.
Supporters of the measures, particularly business advocates, label Georgia as a “judicial hellhole” and contend that escalating insurance costs, stemming from a surge in lawsuits, are burdening businesses. They believe that the legal environment has allowed plaintiffs to secure significant payouts, further driving up costs.
“This situation is not solely about business,” stated Senate Majority Leader Steve Gooch, a Republican from Dahlonega. “It’s about all Georgians facing increased insurance premiums. It is imperative to make owning a home, driving a vehicle, and protecting families with insurance more economical.”
Conversely, critics argue that there is no solid evidence linking the volume of lawsuits to soaring insurance rates, asserting that imposing limits will hinder injured parties from obtaining justice within the legal system.
“This is an attempt to cater to individuals who are likely to funnel money back into your political campaigns,” remarked Jen Jordan, an attorney and former Democratic state senator. “Ultimately, the interests of Georgians will suffer as a result.”
In 2023, Kemp made a commitment to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, a key ally, to pursue measures aimed at curtailing lawsuit costs—an initiative often referred to as “tort reform.” However, he conceded in 2024 that moving forward with these efforts is challenging and instead enacted legislation aimed at collecting data on lawsuit verdicts.
As Kemp organizes events to rally public support before the upcoming legislative session scheduled to commence Monday, he faces opposition from GOP lawmakers who thrive on litigation, Democrats largely against the proposed changes, and a state Supreme Court that has nullified past restrictions.
A spotlight issue involves lawsuits aimed at businesses, including stores and apartment complexes, addressing crimes or injuries that occur on their premises. One notable case involves Sheila Brooks, a Georgia mother who filed a lawsuit against Family Dollar and Dollar Tree after the tragic shooting of her son, Lem Johnny Johnson IV, at one of their stores in south Atlanta.
Law enforcement reports indicate that the shooter was not an employee of Family Dollar; however, Brooks claims in her lawsuit that the company was aware of prior incidents involving violence at that location and failed to enhance security measures for its customers.
Advocates of restricting lawsuits argue that property owners should not be held accountable for the misconduct of others.
“If we address this challenge, Georgia could transform into a more business-friendly environment, thereby improving perceptions for businesses and their insurers,” expressed attorney Bill Custer. “It would significantly enhance our reputation as a state.”
According to Nancy Palmer from the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the current legal environment has driven many insurers away, complicating the acquisition of adequate coverage for businesses. She described the insurance costs as “untenable,” impacting various sectors, from day care services to grocery stores, pharmacies, and housing providers, regardless of whether they are in urban or rural regions.
Darion Dunn, managing partner at Atlantica Properties—known for developing affordable housing—reported that insurers are either increasing premiums or denying coverage to areas they categorize as “high crime” due to litigation concerns.
“Due to soaring insurance costs, projects that would have introduced essential affordable housing options have been abandoned,” Dunn lamented.
Dunn advocates for legislative measures to restrict the compensation amounts claimants can pursue for non-economic damages like emotional distress. In 2005, Georgia lawmakers instituted a cap on such claims, but the state Supreme Court overturned it in 2010, deeming it unconstitutional.
The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association challenges the notion that insurance premiums are rising due to jury verdicts, asserting that “insurance companies have continuously raised rates while reporting record profits.”
To limit the liability of property owners, it may be proposed that restrictions are placed on the types of evidence attorneys can present to show that property owners were aware of risks associated with incidents like the Johnson case.
Additionally, lawmakers could instruct juries to proportion blame among involved parties. An often-cited case from 2023 saw a man awarded nearly $43 million after being shot in a CVS parking lot during a robbery; the jury attributed 95% blame to CVS and just 5% to the victim, leaving the shooter without any blame.
These high-profile verdicts are uncommon, asserted Madeline Summerville, an Atlanta attorney and Democratic political consultant. She claimed such substantial awards usually occur when insurers refuse to settle cases appropriately, noting that while some lawsuits may be “frivolous,” most are legitimate.
“You can’t create legislation based on a minority trying to exploit the system while convincing the entire state that this represents the majority of cases,” Summerville pointed out.
She also raised concerns about potential changes to medical malpractice suits, warning that diminished accountability for medical providers could lower care standards.
During a roundtable with Kemp last fall, medical leaders revealed that escalating insurance costs are causing physicians to hesitate about practicing in Georgia, fearing lawsuits. Stephens County Hospital’s CEO, Van Loskoski, remarked that the facility could not find obstetricians willing to work there due to legal concerns, which led to suspending childbirth services in 2021. Post-suspension, the hospital’s medical malpractice insurance premiums dropped by 13%.
Lawmakers might explore alternative proposals, mirroring some legal changes enacted in Florida in 2023. For instance, they might mandate that attorneys inform juries about the actual costs incurred for medical services rather than inflated charges, or they could conduct separate trials to ascertain fault and appropriate damages for medical cases.