Category: Politics

Even Defense Lawyers Are Sounding the Alarm on SB 68

Posted on by PennLaw

At Penn Law, we are committed to standing up for Georgia citizens whenever their rights are under threat. Right now, legislation aimed at overhauling our civil justice system—SB 68—is moving through the Georgia legislature. While proponents claim this bill is about fairness and reform, legal professionals on both sides of the courtroom are speaking out against it.

One of Georgia’s most respected defense attorneys, Bill Casey, recently shared his opposition to key portions of SB 68 in a letter to the House Rules Committee. Bill Casey is no stranger to the defense side of litigation. As a partner at one of Georgia’s largest defense firms and current President of the Georgia Defense Lawyers Association (GDLA), he has defended hundreds of cases in state and federal courts over his 42-year career. His concerns about SB 68 should give everyone—defense and plaintiff’s counsel alike—reason to pause.

Why Even Defense Attorneys Are Opposed to SB 68

In his letter, Casey highlights several deep flaws in the proposed legislation that will negatively impact Georgia’s civil justice system, including:

Delaying the Process and Clogging the Courts
SB 68 includes provisions that allow for delays in filing legal answers by requiring unnecessary motions. Casey points out that this tactic will slow down the litigation process, burden judges with unnecessary motions, and clog already overwhelmed court dockets.

Unfair Changes to the Collateral Source Rule
The proposed changes punish responsible citizens who pay for health insurance by allowing evidence of collateral sources in court—while allowing others to “blackboard” full medical expenses. Casey warns this creates an uneven playing field that penalizes those who play by the rules.

Unrealistic Requirements for Future Medical Expenses
Under SB 68, plaintiffs would have to prove what an insurer might pay for future medical care—something Casey calls impossible to predict. Coverage can change, and injured individuals may be left with bills they can’t pay. This provision threatens the future well-being of injured Georgians.

Mandatory Bifurcation Will Overcomplicate Trials
Casey also opposes mandatory bifurcation of liability and damages in most cases. He believes this will prolong trials, inconvenience witnesses and jurors, and increase court costs. Trial courts should have discretion, not blanket mandates.

Restricting Arguments on Non-Economic Damages Limits Justice
SB 68 seeks to restrict arguments over non-economic damages, undermining both sides’ ability to advocate and limiting the jury’s role in assessing fairness. Casey believes jurors are capable of making informed decisions when given full information.

What Happens Next?

SB 68 remains under serious consideration. The concerns raised by Bill Casey should serve as a wake-up call: this isn’t about protecting consumers—it’s about tilting the scales in favor of big corporations and insurance companies.

We believe Georgians deserve better. We oppose efforts like SB 68 that limit access to justice and undermine constitutional rights.

Take Action Today

The fight isn’t over. Contact your legislators now and tell them to vote NO on SB 68. Your voice matters in protecting the civil justice system for all Georgians.

The Hiding Game: Insurers Move Money to Mask Profits

Posted on by PennLaw

By: John D. Hadden, Attorney at Penn Law

In the lead-up to Florida’s tort reform legislation, insurance companies funneled billions of dollars to shareholders and affiliate entities while simultaneously claiming financial losses in the state’s markets, according to a newly revealed study commissioned by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.

In a Miami Herald article titled “Secret study found Florida insurers sent billions to affiliates while crying poor” reporter Lawrence Mower writes that “executives distributed $680 million in dividends to shareholders while diverting billions more to affiliate companies.” The article also quotes Doug Quinn, Executive Director of the American Policyholder Association, who stated, “These companies are crying poverty in order to raise premiums or justify insolvency: ‘It’s litigation, it’s fraud‘….This is money shifting from their left pocket to the right, and crying poverty while their right pocket bulges.”

In some cases, insurers collapsed while their affiliates—the beneficiaries of these financial maneuvers—thrived.

The study, which was withheld from lawmakers as they debated, and ultimately enacted sweeping tort reform at the insurance industry’s urging, exposes how insurers exploited affiliate companies to shift profits and circumvent state-imposed profit caps. These affiliates charged insurers exorbitant fees for essential services, directly benefiting company executives. Meanwhile, the effects of tort reform continue to reverberate across Florida, making it more difficult for victims of negligence and wrongdoing to seek justice—all while insurance companies reap the rewards.

What’s Really Behind Senate Bill 68: A Conflict of Interest in Georgia?

Posted on by PennLaw

By Penn Law

The fight over Senate Bill 68 in Georgia is not about justice, fairness, or balancing the civil justice system. Instead, it is about dark money, corporate influence, protecting historic profits, and major conflicts of interest. This bill, which aims to strip Georgians of their constitutional rights in favor of insurance companies and big business, is being propped up by millions in secret funding.

Competitive Georgia: A Secretive Corporate Powerhouse

First, consider Competitive Georgia, a shadowy 501(c)(3) nonprofit with 500 corporate members that has pledged millions of dollars to support SB68. Their justification? The usual misleading buzzwords: “The weaponization and abuse of Georgia’s civil justice system” and “a hostile environment for job creators.” Yet, they provide zero evidence to support these claims – instead relying on the one thing we all agree on as their evidence: insurance premiums are too high. The intentional disconnect is that lawsuits don’t raise your premiums and they know this.

Instead of making their case with facts, they are funding a multimillion-dollar media campaign designed to deceive the public with distorted statistics and outright falsehoods. Expect to see TV commercials, digital ads, and mailers pushing their narrative that SB68 is necessary to “save businesses.” The truth? It is a blatant effort to increase already historic corporate profits at the expense of everyday Georgians.

But what makes Competitive Georgia particularly troubling is its deep ties to Governor Brian Kemp’s office and a powerful law firm that stands to benefit from SB68. The Governor’s Executive Counsel, Sam Hatcher, previously worked at Troutman Pepper Locke, a prestigious silk stocking law firm that shares an address with Competitive Georgia. The CEO of Competitive Georgia, Kade Cullefer, is also the Director of State Affairs at Troutman Strategies, the lobbying arm of Troutman Pepper Locke. That’s right—Competitive Georgia is not some independent advocacy group. It is an extension of one of the most powerful law firms in the state.

And it gets worse. Governor Kemp’s former Executive Counsel, Kristyn Long, just left her position and will begin working as General Counsel for the Georgia Hospital Association on February 14. The Georgia Hospital Association is a major proponent of SB68 and has been lobbying aggressively for its passage. This clear revolving door between government officials and pro-tort reform lobbyists raises serious ethical concerns.

With staff stacked like this, is it really a surprise that Governor Kemp has decided to champion SB68?

PACT: An Out-of-State Money Machine with No Ties to Georgia

As if Competitive Georgia’s influence weren’t enough, another mysterious dark money group has appeared overnight in Georgia: Protecting American Consumers Together (PACT).

Registered in Virginia, PACT pledged $1 million to support SB68 on the very day the Governor announced the bill.

But why would an out-of-state group suddenly care about Georgia’s tort laws? The answer is simple: It’s not about protecting Georgia consumers—it’s about protecting corporate profits.

PACT’s real mission becomes even clearer when you examine its leadership:

· Tim Capowski, a longtime insurance defense lawyer in Florida.

· Paul Renner, the former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.

Both of these men helped Florida pass similar tort reform measures in 2023, promising that it would lower insurance premiums and help consumers. But what actually happened?

· Insurance premiums did not go down – they went up.

· Consumers did not benefit.

· The rights of hardworking Floridians and small business owners were stripped away.

Even President Donald Trump has condemned this type of tort reform, calling it “the biggest insurance scam in the history of the world” and “nothing more than an insurance company bailout.”

The Florida Warning: Georgia Is Next If We Don’t Stop SB68

We don’t have to guess what will happen if SB68 becomes law—we only need to look south to Florida, where similar tort reform has already played out:

· Insurance rates remain high despite all the promises of lower costs.

· Injured victims and small businesses have found it harder to hold bad actors accountable.

· Insurance companies are reporting record profits while ordinary people suffer.

If SB68 passes, Georgia citizens will suffer the same fate.

Follow the Money—Not the Rhetoric

SB68 is not about protecting small businesses or consumers. It is about protecting the profits of insurance companies and the corporations that support them. Millions of dollars in dark money from Competitive Georgia and PACT are being used to deceive the public into believing this bill is necessary.

So ask yourself:

· Why are out-of-state groups suddenly interested in Georgia’s tort laws?

· Why are high-powered law firms and lobbyists so deeply embedded in this fight?

· If tort reform in Florida and other states failed to lower insurance premiums, why would it work in Georgia?

We Must Reject SB68 and the Dark Money Behind It

Georgia citizens deserve honest, transparent policymaking—not backroom deals funded by secretive corporate interests. SB68 is a direct attack on your constitutional rights. It is being sold with lies and funded with millions from anonymous donors who do not have your best interests at heart.

Georgians, now is the time to reject this blatant money grab. Contact your representatives. Let them know you see through the deception and won’t be fooled by corporate propaganda.

Say NO to Senate Bill 68. Say NO to dark money. Say YES to protecting Georgia’s hardworking citizens and small business owners.

They Are Coming for Your Constitutional Rights – It’s Time to Say NO

Posted on by PennLaw

By Penn Law

Two years ago, it was Florida. Now it’s Georgia’s turn. Insurance companies and big business are coming for your constitutional rights, disguising their attack as “tort reform.” But these so-called reforms are not about justice, fairness, or lowering costs for hardworking Georgians. Instead, they are a calculated effort to further pad corporate profits at the expense of citizens and small business owners.

The latest attack comes in the form of Senate Bill 68 (SB68), the Governor’s bill allegedly designed to lower insurance premiums. But there’s one glaring problem: SB68 does not even address insurance rates—the very reason we are told it is necessary. Instead, this bill weakens your 7th Amendment right to trial by jury, a right our founding fathers fought to enshrine in the Constitution and which is reaffirmed in Georgia’s Constitution.

For everyday Georgians and small business owners, SB68 is a double blow—insurance premiums remain high, and your constitutional rights take a hit.

Even President Donald Trump, not exactly known for favoring lawsuits, has called tort reform “an insurance company bailout” and “the worst insurance scam in history.” He’s right.

A Legal Scam That Must Be Stopped

If SB68 passes, it will erase 292 years of common law in Georgia—laws that have existed since 1733. This bill would create a legal framework that does not exist anywhere in the United States or any other country with a civil justice system. That alone should be enough to sound the alarm.

It will also:

· Prevent you from telling a jury what you want in damages. The purpose of civil litigation is to seek just compensation. Under SB68, you wouldn’t even be allowed to tell the jury what that is. Our law states that damages should be set through the “enlightened conscience” of jurors. Yet, this bill prevents you from informing them—an absurd and unprecedented move.

· Treat homemakers, the elderly, and children as second-class citizens. Those who don’t earn traditional wages—like stay-at-home parents, retirees, or children—will have fewer rights than business executives.

· Create a “lawsuit lottery.” Without clear guidance, jurors will be forced to guess what damages should be, leading to wildly inconsistent and unfair verdicts.

Shielding Bad Actors from Accountability

SB68 doesn’t just make it harder to win lawsuits—it shields wrongdoers from consequences.

This bill removes the ability to penalize defendants who act in bad faith, cause unnecessary trouble, or stubbornly refuse to settle reasonable claims. Insurance companies will face no consequences for dragging out claims and denying rightful payments—if anything, they will be rewarded for it.

Make no mistake: SB68 is an insurance company dream bill. It gives insurers and big business even more power to delay, deny, and defend claims indefinitely, all while maximizing their profits at your expense.

Clogging the Court System with Burdensome Rules

Georgia’s legal system is already complex, but SB68 will make it worse—trials will take two to four times longer, increasing costs and clogging dockets.

This bill will also make hiring expert witnesses mandatory for questions jurors could answer themselves—like whether someone wore a seatbelt in a car accident. These additional costs will price everyday Georgians out of the courtroom, ensuring that justice is only available to the wealthy.

The Truth: Insurance Companies Are Thriving, Not Struggling

Don’t be fooled into thinking insurers need this bill to stay afloat. The truth is, insurance companies have never been more profitable.

In 2023, insurers made $87 billion in profits, and 2024 is shaping up to be even better. Meanwhile, their CEOs collect tens of millions in salaries, while everyday Georgians struggle to get their rightful claims paid.

The numbers tell the real story:

· Georgia’s defense costs for insurance companies are lower than in surrounding states.

· Insurance companies in Georgia pay out less per claim than they do in other states.

Despite these facts, they are still coming for your constitutional rights—because they want more.

This Bill Will Make Your Life Worse

Let’s be clear: If SB68 passes, your life will not improve. Your insurance rates will not drop. Your small business will not be better protected.

The only entities that will benefit from this bill are big business and the insurance industry.

No one chooses to be injured, disabled, or killed in an accident. No one asks to have their life permanently altered by another person’s negligence. I tell people all the time, “You do not want to have to call me, because if you do, something terrible has happened.” Yet, those harmed are now being told they should have fewer rights and fewer options for justice.

Imagine if it were your daughter, son, mother, or father. Would you want fewer legal options? Would you want your lawyer to be restricted in how they can fight for you? Would you want to be forced into a legal system rigged against you?

Reject This Attack on Your Rights

Accountability must apply to everyone—individuals, businesses, and insurance companies alike. SB68 destroys accountability by ensuring that only the wealthy and powerful can afford to seek justice.

This is not just another bill. This is a direct attack on the fundamental rights of every Georgian. We, the people, must stand together and reject this blatant power grab.

Contact your representatives. Tell them that we will not stand by while they strip us of our constitutional rights. Make your voice heard.

Say NO to Senate Bill 68. Say NO to corporate greed. Say YES to protecting Georgia’s hardworking citizens and small business owners.

They are coming for your rights. It’s time to fight back—LOUDLY.

Why Georgia Should Reject the Empty Promises of Senate Bill 68

Posted on by PennLaw

By Penn Law

For years, insurance companies and corporate lobbyists have pushed for so-called civil justice reform in Georgia, claiming that lawsuits and “nuclear verdicts” are driving up insurance costs and harming businesses. The truth is, no such crisis exists. Now, with Senate Bill 68 (SB68), the Governor’s proposed solution, it is clear that this effort is nothing more than a corporate power grab designed to protect insurance industry profits at the expense of Georgia’s citizens. SB68 will not lower insurance premiums, improve healthcare, or create a fairer legal system. Instead, it will strip Georgians of their constitutional rights and make it harder for innocent victims to obtain justice.

The False Premise of Senate Bill 68

One of the primary arguments for SB68 is that it will lower insurance premiums, particularly for car insurance. But this claim falls apart when we examine the real drivers of insurance costs. Industry data shows that litigation is not responsible for rising premiums. Instead, insurance rates are influenced by the number of accidents, the rising cost of vehicle repairs, corporate profit margins, natural disasters, and economic factors like inflation and supply chain disruptions.

Consider this: bodily injury liability coverage—the portion of a policy that pays out if a driver is at fault and injures someone—makes up only 30% of a total premium. Meanwhile, property damage coverage, which includes liability, collision, and comprehensive, accounts for nearly 60%. Why? Because it costs far more to repair a car than to pay for an injury claim. Furthermore, umbrella policies providing $5 million in liability coverage cost as little as $557 per year. If litigation were truly a major cost driver, why would insurers charge so little for such high coverage? The answer is clear: SB68 is not about lowering premiums—it’s about increasing corporate profits.

The Insurance Industry’s Record Profits Tell the Real Story

Despite pushing the myth that restricting lawsuits will lower insurance rates, insurance companies are raking in record profits. In 2023 alone, the insurance industry made over $87 billion in investment profits, with 2024 projected to be even more profitable. Yet, rather than passing those savings to consumers, insurers continue raising premiums while lobbying for laws like SB68 that restrict an injured person’s ability to recover damages.

Insurance companies use a well-known playbook: delay payments, deny claims, and defend their profits at all costs. Data from the industry itself shows that claimants without attorneys are 70% more likely to receive no compensation. This isn’t because their claims lack merit—it’s because insurers make it difficult for victims to recover fair compensation. SB68 will only further enable insurers to deny claims and limit their financial responsibility.

The Myth of a Litigation Crisis

Georgia is not experiencing a litigation crisis. In fact, insurance companies’ own data disproves this narrative. Following the 2024 legislative session, reports showed that the number of claims in Georgia has remained stable when adjusted for population growth. Total payouts for claims have actually declined since 2016, when adjusted for inflation. If litigation were truly driving insurance costs, we would expect claims and payouts to be rising—but the opposite is happening.

Even the “nuclear verdicts” that proponents of tort reform claim are rampant are exceedingly rare. The Georgia Insurance Commissioner’s report found zero nuclear verdicts in personal auto liability cases—which make up the vast majority of insurance claims. In commercial cases, verdicts exceeding $10 million accounted for at most 2% of claims between 2014 and 2023. The reality is that Georgia’s legal system is functioning as it should, ensuring accountability for extreme negligence while keeping verdicts reasonable.

Healthcare and Small Businesses Will Not Benefit

Advocates of SB68 claim that limiting lawsuits will lower healthcare costs and help small businesses. But history proves otherwise. Over the past 30 years, the number of physicians in Georgia has steadily increased, while medical malpractice payouts have declined by over 50%. However, medical malpractice insurance premiums continue to rise. If tort reform were truly the key to lowering healthcare costs, we would have seen those savings passed on to doctors and patients—but we haven’t.

Similarly, small businesses will not see relief from rising insurance costs. Insurance companies set their own premiums, and when tort reform passes, insurers keep the savings instead of lowering rates. In states like Texas, which enacted tort reform years ago, insurance companies continued raising premiums despite restrictions on lawsuits. Georgia’s small businesses should not be deceived into believing that SB68 will help them.

The Erosion of Constitutional Rights

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of SB68 is its direct attack on constitutional rights. The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury, a right also enshrined in Georgia’s Constitution. SB68 undermines this fundamental right by:

· Erasing 292 years of Georgia law going back to 1733.

· Making the trial process more expensive and burdensome for plaintiffs.

· Creating procedural hurdles that benefit corporations over individuals.

Who Benefits from SB68? Not You.

Governor Kemp has made tort reform a priority, but the only real beneficiaries are insurance companies and big business. While insurance executives collect record-breaking bonuses, Georgia’s families, workers, and small businesses will be left with weakened legal recourse when harmed by negligence or misconduct.

Everyday hardworking Georgians must stand together to reject this unjust proposal. The only real crisis is an insurance industry that continues to rake in historic profits while limiting the rights of those they claim to serve.

The Bottom Line: SB68 Is a Corporate Giveaway

SB68 will not lower your insurance rates, will not improve access to healthcare, and will not protect small businesses. What it will do is shield corporations from accountability and make it harder for injured Georgians to seek justice.

We must reject these deceptive measures and demand real reform that puts people over profits. Georgia lawmakers must vote NO on SB68.

The Finite Nature of Rights: A Delicate Balance

Posted on by PennLaw

By Darren Penn, Attorney, Penn Law

The concept of rights is foundational to the organization of societies and the governance of human behavior. But rights are not infinite; they exist within a framework of limitations because society functions as a shared space where the rights of one individual can directly affect the rights of another. When one person is granted a particular right, it often requires others to make concessions, creating a delicate balancing act to ensure fairness and societal harmony.

A poignant example of this interplay is the debate over smoking in public. When a person is given the right to smoke in a shared space, others in that space inherently lose their ability to enjoy a smoke-free environment. This scenario underscores the principle that rights do not exist in isolation; they interact with, and sometimes conflict with, the rights of others. For those exposed to secondhand smoke, the effects are not merely an inconvenience but can also pose serious health risks. By prioritizing the smoker’s right to indulge, society diminishes the non-smoker’s right to personal health and comfort.

This tension is not unique to smoking; it permeates many areas of public life. Consider the right to freedom of speech, a cornerstone of democratic societies. While everyone is entitled to express their opinions, this right becomes finite when it infringes upon the rights of others to feel safe or free from harm. Hate speech, for instance, may fall under the banner of free expression for the speaker, but it can encroach upon the rights of others by fostering discrimination, fear, or violence. In such cases, societies often implement laws to balance these competing rights, restricting certain forms of speech to protect vulnerable groups.

Another critical example of this balancing act is found in tort reform, which has significant implications for the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury. The 7th Amendment guarantees individuals the right to have civil disputes decided by a jury of their peers. Tort reform, however, often limits this right by capping damages or restricting the ability to bring certain lawsuits. While proponents argue that tort reform helps prevent frivolous lawsuits and reduces costs for businesses and healthcare providers, in reality it merely away the rights of individuals to hold others fully accountable for harm–existing laws punish those bringing frivolous lawsuits and shift the costs of litigation to the losing party in the rare cases where a truly frivolous lawsuit is filed.

For instance, if a person suffers severe injury due to medical malpractice but laws cap damages for pain and suffering, their ability to seek full redress is undermined. Similarly, when procedural barriers or mandatory arbitration replace the right to a jury trial, individuals lose their opportunity to have their grievances fairly heard and decided. This weakens accountability and shifts power away from ordinary citizens toward corporations, insurance companies, or other well-resourced entities. Tort reform thus illustrates how expanding one group’s protections or conveniences (e.g., corporations and insurance companies seeking more profits and reduced liability) can come at the direct expense of another group’s fundamental rights.

The finite nature of rights raises moral and ethical questions about prioritization. Whose rights take precedence in situations of conflict? The answer often depends on societal values, cultural norms, and legal frameworks. In democratic societies, this balance is often achieved through public discourse, legislation, and judicial decisions, which aim to reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the interests of minority groups.

Ultimately, the finite nature of rights reminds us that freedom is not merely about individual entitlement but about coexistence and compromise. A society that ignores this balance risks descending into chaos, where the strong dominate the weak or where unrestricted freedoms lead to harm. Recognizing the interdependence of rights encourages empathy and dialogue, helping to craft policies that respect both individual freedoms and collective well-being.

Rights are not infinite, and granting a right to one person often requires taking it, in part or in whole, from another. This interplay demands careful consideration and thoughtful governance to create a society that respects the delicate equilibrium of competing interests. Tort reform highlights how this balancing act can profoundly affect the fundamental rights of individuals, demonstrating that vigilance is necessary to ensure fairness and accountability in a world of finite freedoms.

Tort Reform: A Misleading Promise

Posted on by PennLaw

By Darren Penn, Penn Law

Big Business and Insurance Companies’ advocacy for tort reform in Georgia is built on a foundation of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies. Tort reform proponents claim their policies will benefit “everyday Georgia citizens” by reducing costs, improving access to justice, and ensuring fairness in the legal system. However, the reality is starkly different. Tort reform erodes the constitutional rights of citizens, disproportionately benefits the rich and powerful, and fails to deliver on its promises.

At the heart of this debate lies the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to a trial by jury, a right that is echoed in Georgia’s Constitution. This is the only mechanism that allows everyday Georgians to stand on equal footing with the wealthy and powerful. Whether it’s holding a negligent corporation accountable, seeking justice against an insurer acting in bad faith, or confronting a healthcare provider who has caused harm, the civil justice system provides ordinary citizens with a fair shot. Tort reform undermines this system by limiting damages, restricting access to courts, and creating procedural barriers that favor Big Business and Insurance Companies over individuals.

A common refrain is that tort reform will lower insurance premiums. History, and actual facts, prove otherwise. In states where tort reform has been enacted, insurance premiums have not decreased. Instead, insurance companies have used these reforms to boost their profits while continuing to raise rates. Georgia is no exception. Over the past two years, insurers have made record profits (in excess of $87 billion in 2023, and higher than that in 2024!), yet premiums for auto, health, and property insurance have remained high—or have even increased. David L. Stegall, Georgia Insurance Market Review (Nov. 18, 2024) at 20. I am a small business owner myself, and I know the sting of high insurance premiums. But, I am smart enough to know that the high premiums have absolutely nothing to do with civil lawsuits.  

These are the same insurance companies have repeatedly been exposed for failing to act in good faith when handling claims in an effort to boost their bottom line. Countless hurricane victims in Georgia, for example, continue to face stonewalling tactics from insurers, leaving their lives in ruins while the companies post record earnings. The narrative that lawsuits are driving insurers out of Georgia is demonstrably false. Insurers are thriving here, and the real pressure they face stems from natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires—not from lawsuits.  In fact, the data provided by the insurance companies themselves reveals a disturbing practice of denying the claims of citizens who file without the assistance of an attorney: Unrepresented claimants in Georgia are 70% more likely to receive no recovery at all despite making up the strong majority of submitted claims-nearly 60%.  David L. Stegall, Analysis of Insurance Commissioner King Report (Nov. 18, 2024). at 3; see also Table 4 p. 17, and Table 14 p. 35 of the John King Report “HB 1114 Data Analysis for Tort Reform”.

Similarly, the argument that tort reform is necessary to keep doctors in Georgia is equally baseless. The number of physicians practicing in Georgia has steadily and consistently increased over the last 30 years going back to 1992, contradicting claims of an exodus. Bernard S. Black, Analysis of Georgia Medical Malpractice Environment (Nov. 15, 2024) at 3, 16-18.  The number of paid claims (>$50,000) against Georgia physicians has dropped by more than 50% over the last 30 years when adjusted for the number of physicians.  Bernard S. Black, Analysis of Georgia Medical Malpractice Environment (Nov. 15, 2024) at 2, 10-11.  The total payouts for claims against Georgia physicians has dropped 50% over the last 30 years when adjusted for the number of physicians. Id. at 2, 11-12. The truth is that patients face immense challenges in winning these lawsuits, making the claim that verdicts have “run amok” both dishonest and insulting to victims of genuine medical negligence.

Finally, the assertion that lawsuits have spiraled out of control and that jury verdicts are excessive is another falsehood. Civil lawsuits make up a tiny fraction of Georgia’s legal system, and the average size of verdicts has remained consistent over time. In fact, tort lawsuits makeup just 7% of the total civil filings in Georgia and this has remained the case for about the last twelve years. National Center for State Courts, “CSP STAT Civil: Trial Court Caseload Overview, Caseload Detail – Tort, Incoming Five-Year Trend, 2019-2023” (October 2024).  Again, the truth has long been that tort lawsuits are a small part of the civil justice system and verdicts are no higher today than they have ever been. 

These misleading narratives about tort cases serve only to advance the interests of corporations and insurers at the expense of justice for ordinary citizens.

In conclusion, tort reform is a lie—a thinly veiled attempt to protect the profits of the rich and powerful while stripping everyday Georgians of their constitutional rights. Big Business and Insurers’s claims do not hold up under scrutiny. Tort reform will not lower insurance premiums, it will not improve healthcare access, and it will not create a fairer legal system. Instead, it will leave citizens more vulnerable to harm and with fewer tools to seek justice. The people of Georgia deserve better than a system that prioritizes corporate profits over their rights and well-being.

Tort Reform? No, Insurance Reform!

Posted on by PennLaw

By Darrren Penn, Penn Law

In Georgia, debates around tort reform have drawn recent attention, yet the data reveals a misdiagnosis of the problem. Despite claims that tort reform is necessary to address rising insurance costs and excessive litigation, a look at the data reveals that the real issue lies with the practices of the insurance industry. Georgia does not need tort reform; it needs insurance reform.

The Misconception of a Litigation Crisis

Proponents of tort reform, Big Business and Insurance Companies, argue that Georgia is experiencing a litigation crisis. This assertion does not align with the facts. Insurance Companies’ own data show that the frequency of insurance claims has remained stable despite Georgia’s notably high accident rate—almost double the national average of 3.7 accidents per 100 people annually compared to 1.9 nationally. David L. Stegall, Analysis of Insurance Commissioner King Report (Nov. 18, 2024), at 10. When adjusted for population growth, claims are actually decreasing, even as accident rates remain high. Id. at 10-11.

Further dismantling the myth of runaway litigation, the insurance data proves that so-called “nuclear verdicts” (which the insurance industry arbitrarily defines as verdicts exceeding $10 million, regardless of the harm involved) are exceedingly rare in Georgia. In personal auto liability cases, which constitute 89% of the data analyzed, no “nuclear verdicts” occurred between 2014 and 2023. Even in commercial liability cases (cases involving claims against commercial businesses), “nuclear verdicts” represented a mere 2% of all claims during the same period. These findings expose the claims of a litigation crisis as exaggerated, unsupported, and contrary to the truth. Id. at 4, 18-19.

Insurance Industry Practices: The Real Problem

Rather than excessive litigation, the focus should be on insurance industry practices that harm Georgia consumers. Insurance companies have demonstrated a troubling pattern of denying claims to unrepresented individuals, who constitute nearly 60% of submitted claims. Alarmingly, according to insurance industry data, unrepresented claimants are 70% more likely to receive no recovery whatsoever. This forces many Georgians to hire attorneys simply to secure any form of compensation, once again contradicting the narrative that attorneys are the root cause of rising costs. Stegall, at 3, 5.

Despite their public complaints about rising costs, insurance companies operating in Georgia are reaping unprecedented profits. In 2023, they earned over $87 billion in investment income nationwide. 2024 was yet another historically profitable year for Georgia’s insurance companies reaping in billions more in profits. David L. Stegall, Georgia Insurance Market Review (Nov. 18, 2024), at 3. And, the insurance data shows that Georgia’s insurance defense costs are also remarkably low, accounting for only 3.3% of total earned premiums compared to the national average of 3.7%. Id. at 13. In other words, despite the fact that we have more accidents in Georgia, insurance companies pay less in both payments to victims and in defending claims.  If the national average matched Georgia’s rate, U.S. insurers would have saved $6.9 billion in 2023 alone.

The Case for Insurance Reform

The disparities in the insurance industry’s treatment of claims and its profit-driven operations highlight the urgent need for reform. First, Georgia’s insurance companies must be held accountable for their claim denial practices. Transparency and stricter regulations can ensure that unrepresented claimants are not unfairly disadvantaged.  How many Georgians are still in a state of devastation after Helene because insurance companies have not done what they are supposed to do–what they are contractually obligated to do? This sort of conduct must stop now. 

Second, reforms should address the disconnect between falling payouts and rising premiums. For example, medical malpractice premiums in Georgia have decreased by 19% since 1990, adjusted for inflation, the number of large claims against physicians dropped by more than 50% the last 20 years, and the average payout per Georgia physician has declined 61% over that time. Bernard S. Black, Analysis of Georgia Medical Malpractice Environment (Nov. 15, 2025) at 2-3. Despite this reality of reduced claims and payments, physicians and patients have not fully benefited from these savings. This demonstrates how insurance companies prioritize profits over consumer welfare. Id. at 14-17. 

Conclusion

The data makes a compelling case: Georgia’s legal environment is not the problem; the insurance industry is. Calls for tort reform are misguided distractions that fail to address the real issues plaguing Georgia consumers. By enacting comprehensive insurance reform, Georgia can ensure fair treatment for claimants, curb exploitative practices, and create a system that serves its citizens rather than insurance company profits. It’s time to shift the conversation from tort reform to insurance reform.

Big Business’s Tort Reform Agenda: A Threat to Republican Values and Constitutional Rights

Posted on by PennLaw

By Darren Penn, Attorney, Penn Law

Big Business and Insurers’ push for tort reform in Georgia is not only a direct assault on the constitutional right to trial by jury but also a political miscalculation that risks alienating Republican voters. By pushing measures that weaken this fundamental right, Big Business and Insurers are asking our leaders to undermine the very principles of individual liberty and accountability that the Republican Party has long championed. 

This move is not only anti-American and anti-democratic but also a dangerous precedent that could pave the way for attacks on other constitutional rights, such as those under the First and Second Amendments.

The right to trial by jury is enshrined in both the U.S. Constitution (7th Amendment) and the Georgia Constitution. It is a right that the Founding Fathers fought for after realizing the critical importance of colonial juries in protecting Americans from tyrannical laws imposed by the British monarchy and parliament. The trial by jury system is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring that citizens—not corporations, insurance companies, or government officials—serve as the arbiters of justice. 

This right is inviolate, meaning it cannot and should not be tampered with. Yet Big Business and Insurers’ tort reform agenda seeks to do exactly that by imposing limits on damages, restricting access to courts, and favoring the interests of powerful entities over those of ordinary Americans. This is a playbook they have attempted in every state. 

This approach is fundamentally anti-democratic. It shifts power away from the people and toward an elite class of corporations and insurers, allowing them to avoid accountability for their actions. It creates a system where victims of negligence or misconduct—whether from medical malpractice, unsafe products, or bad faith insurance practices—are left without meaningful recourse. For a party that prides itself on defending individual freedoms, this is a direct contradiction of Republican values.

Even more concerning for Republicans is the precedent this sets. By endorsing measures that weaken the constitutional right to trial by jury, “tort reformers” and their allies open the door for the erosion of other constitutional rights. Republicans should consider the implications of this dangerous precedent: if the 7th Amendment can be weakened for political or financial gain, what’s stopping future leaders from targeting the 2nd Amendment? Once the integrity of one constitutional right is compromised, it becomes far easier for others to be undermined. Today, it’s the right to trial by jury. Tomorrow, it could be the right to bear arms.

The so-called tort reform agenda is not only anti-American and anti-democratic—it is politically short-sighted. By prioritizing the interests of corporations and insurers over those of individual citizens, our leaders risk alienating the Republican base and undermining trust in the party’s commitment to defending constitutional rights. Republicans in Georgia should demand that their leaders reject this assault on the 7th Amendment and reaffirm their dedication to protecting all constitutional freedoms. Anything less is a betrayal of the principles that define the party and the nation.

Tort Reform Betrays True Republican Values

Posted on by PennLaw

By Darren Penn, Attorney, Penn Law

At its core, the Republican Party has long stood for principles of personal responsibility, limited government, and strict adherence to the Constitution. These values champion the idea that individuals and businesses alike should be held accountable for their actions and that every American has the right to seek justice when wronged. However, the recent push for tort reform by the insurance industry undermines these fundamental tenets, protecting the wealthy elite at the expense of everyday Americans. Far from being a true reflection of Republican values, tort reform is an affront to the ideals of accountability and the Constitution.

The right to trial by jury is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in the 7th Amendment, and echoed in Georgia’s Constitution. It ensures that disputes between citizens or against powerful entities can be resolved fairly by a jury of peers.

Tort reform, which often involves caps on damages, restrictions on filing lawsuits, or forced arbitration, directly weakens this constitutional right. By imposing limits on how and when individuals can seek justice, tort reform tilts the scales of justice in favor of large corporations and the wealthy, effectively eroding one of the most democratic mechanisms in the judicial system.

For a party that prides itself on upholding the Constitution, this is a significant betrayal. Tort reform restricts citizens’ access to a jury trial, enriching powerful industries such as insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms, and healthcare providers at the cost of justice or fairness to ordinary citizens.

These industries, which reap massive profits, are shielded from full accountability when their negligence or misconduct harms others. This directly contradicts the Republican ethos of personal responsibility, which dictates that wrongdoers should bear the consequences of their actions.
Big business and insurance companies push tort reform to protect their profits at the expense of everyday citizens. Hardworking Georgians rely on the civil justice system to hold powerful entities accountable when harmed. Whether it’s a small business owner injured by a defective product, a family devastated by medical malpractice, or a worker hurt due to corporate negligence, tort reform limits their ability to seek fair compensation.
Supporters claim it curbs “frivolous lawsuits” and lowers costs, but the reality is far different. Tort reform blocks legitimate claims, shields corporations from accountability, and conceals unsafe practices. Instead of protecting the public, it shifts the burden of corporate negligence onto innocent citizens, letting the wealthy evade responsibility. And Georgia law already provides for penalties against those filing frivolous lawsuits.
True Republican values demand accountability. Shielding corporations from consequences is not conservatism—it’s cronyism. If Republicans are serious about upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of all Americans, they must reject tort reform and stand for justice, not just the privileged few.