The Finite Nature of Rights: A Delicate Balance

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

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!

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

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

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.

Business Interruption Insurance and Recovering What Your Business Deserves

For years, businesses nationwide have purchased expensive insurance policies to protect them from unknown risk and unforeseeable losses. Now, a growing number of business owners, who are in the midst of suffering existential business losses, are discovering their safety nets have been pulled out from underneath them.

Continue reading