News & Resources

On April 21, 2025, Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bills 68 and 69 into law, passing tort and legal reform that many have described as “sweeping.” While we are anticipating pushback down the line in the form of challenges to the constitutionality of certain provisions (both under the state and federal constitutions), we wanted to offer our clients a quick overview of the short-term impact of this newly enacted legislation with a timeline for same, as separate portions of which will be implemented by phases rather than all at once.

Effective 04/21/2025 (Procedural Changes), Phase 1:

• The terms “Economic Damages” and “Noneconomic Damages” (e.g., pain and suffering) have been statutorily redefined with new rules established curtailing the practice of “anchoring” (a plaintiff’s attorney suggesting a specific figure for noneconomic damages to a jury during trial to coax a larger award of such damages than a jury might have arrived at upon its own), limiting any reference to specific numbers to closing arguments after the close of evidence and providing certain restraints (e.g., there must be a “rational” connection of any figure to the evidence admitted, and rebuttal figures may not differ from the initial figure argued).

• Rule 12 motions (under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12 to dismiss, for a more definite statement, etc.) may be filed/served before an answer, and the time for an answer is extended until there is a ruling and (if appropriate) service of a more definite statement to the defendant answering.

• Automatic stays of discovery that already occur during the pendency of a Rule 12 motion shall continue until a ruling, even if the judge does not meet his/her statutory obligation to rule on the motion within 90 days after the briefing has concluded; however, the court may, upon motion of any party (but not on its own initiative) modify/terminate the stay for good cause shown.

• Plaintiffs may no longer wait until the first trial witness is sworn to voluntarily dismiss the suit without prejudice (forcing a “do-over”); instead, the plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice at any time before 60 days after service of the opposing party’s answer; however, a prior voluntary dismissal without prejudice by the plaintiff in a related state or federal case will render a subsequent dismissal with prejudice and a final adjudication on the merits.

• O.C.G.A. § 9-15-16 will preclude duplicative recoveries of attorney’s fees for the same subject matter under separate statutes/laws (unless the law expressly permits a duplicate recovery); however, contractual attorney’s fees are not affected.

• Evidence concerning the failure to use a seatbelt by the occupant of a motor vehicle shall now be admissible in any civil action as evidence admissible on the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, or apportionment of fault, or for any other purpose (except adjusting/increasing insurance premiums).

• Trials of civil actions for personal injury/death for more than a set amount (less than $150k), on motion of any party, will be bifurcated and sometimes trifurcated into phases for the jury to determine 1) liability/fault of parties and non-parties; 2) damages; and 3) punitive damages and/or attorney’s fees, etc.

• O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(b) is amended to include subsection (2.1)(A)-(B) rendering litigation finance agreements discoverable (but not necessarily admissible) if pertinent to the pending litigation, by statute, in much the same fashion as insurance agreements/policies (except that non-parties will only be required to produce them if for $25k or more).

Effective Pending AFTER (not on/before) 04/21/2025 (Substantive Changes), Phase 1.2:

SB 69 also provided that evidence concerning the failure to use a seatbelt by the occupant of a motor vehicle shall now be admissible in any civil action as evidence admissible on the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, or apportionment of fault, or for any other purpose (except adjusting/increasing insurance premiums); while SB 68 had a nearly identical provision that seems to be effective immediately, this version was expressly made not applicable to actions pending on or after the date it became law (April 21, 2025). So, this would seem to be a secondary implementation on different terms, possibly in case the courts construe this as a substantive rather than procedural change in the law requiring additional notice prior to implementation.

Effective for Claims “Arising on of After” 04/21/2025 (Substantive Changes), Phase 2:

• Limitation of “Negligent Security” claims (an offshoot of premises liability), greatly restricting when and under what circumstances owners/occupiers and their security contractors may be held liable for injuries caused by the criminal actions of third parties.

• In civil actions for personal injury/death, modification (or possibly abrogation) of the “collateral source” rule, eliminating “phantom medical damages” by permitting recovery of medical expenses to those that were or will be paid for the benefit of the injured plaintiff, after consideration of insurance plan discounts, etc.

Starting January 1, 2026 (Substantive Changes), Phase 3:

• Litigation finance companies (“financiers”) must be registered with the state government.

• Litigation financiers will be heavily regulated, and they may not share commissions/financial incentives with plaintiffs’ attorneys or their team members.

• Litigation financiers will bear many of the risks associated with financing patently frivolous/abusive litigation.

• Financing of litigation in willful violation of this new law is a felony.