The Georgia General Assembly convened on January 13, 2025, marking the start of what is expected to be a pivotal year for tort reform in the state. With Governor Brian Kemp and legislative leaders making legal system reforms a top priority, the debate over lawsuit limitations and business protections is set to take center stage.
Reshaping Georgia’s Legal Landscape
Tort reform is expected to be one of the dominant issues this legislative session, following Governor Kemp’s announcement of an ambitious tort reform package aimed at overhauling Georgia’s civil justice system. The proposed legislation seeks to create a more predictable and balanced legal environment for both businesses and consumers.
Republican leaders have proposed these reforms in response to claims that excessive litigation and large jury verdicts have contributed to higher insurance costs and an unfavorable business climate in Georgia.
Among the key provisions of the proposed reforms are:
Premises Liability Reform - Under current Georgia law, businesses can be held liable for criminal acts that occur on their property, even if they had no direct involvement or knowledge of the incident. The reform seeks to limit liability to situations where businesses could reasonably foresee or prevent such crimes.
Supporters argue that current laws place an unfair burden on property owners, particularly small businesses, forcing them to bear responsibility for criminal acts beyond their control.
Opponents warn that limiting liability could weaken protections for crime victims and reduce incentives for businesses to maintain adequate security measures.
Limiting "Phantom Damages" - The reform also seeks to address "phantom damages," a term used to describe the difference between the amount billed for medical expenses and the amount actually paid by insurers or third parties.
The proposed change would limit damages in personal injury cases to actual payments made, rather than the higher amounts originally billed.
Proponents claim this would help prevent excessive settlements and reduce insurance premiums.
Critics argue that this could limit compensation for injured plaintiffs, particularly those without comprehensive insurance coverage.
Increased Transparency in Litigation Financing - Another key reform targets third-party litigation financing—where outside investors fund lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of the settlement. The proposed legislation would require mandatory disclosure when a plaintiff has received litigation funding.
Business groups support the measure, asserting that transparency would help curb frivolous lawsuits and reduce profit-driven litigation.
Trial lawyers argue that litigation financing is often the only means for individuals to afford legal representation, particularly those with limited financial resources.
Support and Opposition
The proposed reforms have received strong backing from Georgia’s business community and the insurance industry, both of which have long contended that excessive litigation increases costs for businesses and consumers alike.
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) has been particularly vocal, asserting that large jury awards have contributed to rising auto and commercial insurance rates across Georgia.
Business groups point to recent high-value verdicts in Georgia courts, arguing that "jackpot" lawsuits encourage speculative claims and undermine economic stability.
However, the reforms have also faced strong opposition from trial lawyers, consumer advocacy groups, and patient rights organizations, who argue that these changes could:
Make it harder for injured plaintiffs to receive full compensation.
Shift the legal system in favor of businesses and insurers.
Weaken consumer and patient protections.
The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association has voiced concerns that limiting damages and liability could make it significantly more difficult for injured individuals to hold negligent parties accountable.
Consumer advocacy groups have also opposed provisions such as the seatbelt evidence rule, warning that introducing seatbelt use in litigation could unfairly reduce compensation for accident victims, even in cases where the other driver was primarily at fault.
Additionally, patient advocacy organizations argue that the proposed medical damages limitations could disproportionately impact individuals with limited or no insurance, ultimately restricting their ability to seek necessary medical care after an injury.
The Path Forward
The tort reform debate is shaping up to be one of the most contentious battles of the 2025 legislative session.
Business groups and insurers are pushing for sweeping legal changes.
Trial lawyers and consumer advocates are fighting to preserve plaintiff-friendly laws.
Lawmakers are under intense pressure from both sides, with some suggesting a compromise approach that balances competing interests.
While Governor Kemp and Republican leaders remain confident they have the votes to pass at least some elements of the reform package, the final legislation will likely be shaped through negotiations in the coming weeks.
As the session unfolds, stakeholders on both sides will continue lobbying lawmakers and shaping public opinion, ensuring that Georgia’s tort reform battle remains at the forefront of the 2025 legislative agenda.
Stay tuned for further updates as the session progresses.
.png)
.jpg)
