On April 21, 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law two historic tort reform measures. Senate Bills 68 and 69, mark the first major tort reform since 2005 and the most comprehensive overhaul of the state's civil litigation framework in decades. These legislative developments reflect a deliberate and long-awaited shift in Georgia's legal climate, as policymakers respond to mounting concerns about disproportionate "nuclear verdicts," plaintiff-favored procedures, and rising litigation costs that have rippled through industries.
For the better part of a decade, Georgia has occupied a prominent position in the American Tort Reform Foundation's "Judicial Hellholes" list, an annual ranking that highlights jurisdictions where courts are perceived to be unfair to defendants in civil litigation. This designation is rooted in data showing a pattern of multi-million, and in some cases billion-dollar verdicts, strategic maneuvering, and procedural rules that collectively fuel an unbalanced system. These issues have carried real-world consequences. Foreign and domestic insurers and businesses operating in Georgia have faced unpredictable exposure, including increased costs of defense, while property owners and businesses have borne the resulting increases in their insurance premiums, healthcare costs, and prices for goods and services.
While prior legislative sessions saw modest progress, such as incremental reforms to Georgia's approach to time-limited demands and apportionment of damages, until now the structural drivers of excessive litigation remained largely unaddressed. The passage of SB 68 and SB 69 signals Georgia's intent to recalibrate the balance in its civil justice system by promoting fairness, transparency, and predictability. Aside from the new standards addressing negligent security and phantom damages, which apply to any cause of action arising after April 21, 2025, all other changes became effective immediately and apply to any pending cases already in litigation.
Senate Bill 68: Modernizing Civil Procedure and Evidence
SB 68 is the centerpiece of Georgia's tort reform package, bringing sweeping changes to several long-standing civil procedural and evidentiary rules that have shaped Georgia's litigation landscape. The bill's provisions are broad in scope, but collectively aimed at achieving a more efficient and equitable system.
Reining in Premises Liability Claims in the Negligent Security Context
One of the more contentious areas of Georgia premises liability law in recent years has involved negligent security litigation, particularly in urban commercial settings. In fact, runaway jury verdicts in negligent security cases have largely driven Georgia's reputation, essentially requiring private property owners to foresee virtually any criminal conduct on or near their property. Under the new framework, plaintiffs must now meet a more stringent standard of foreseeability to establish liability under a statutorily-defined claim of "negligent security." Specifically, property owners and business operators will no longer be held liable for third-party criminal conduct absent prior, similar incidents or explicit warnings of harm that would place a reasonable property owner on notice. This shift reduces the standard of care for landowners and their security contractors, curtails speculative claims, and aligns liability more closely with traditional principles of duty and causation.
No More "Phantom Damages" When Seeking Medical Expenses
SB 68 also addresses the widespread practice of introducing "phantom damages" – where a plaintiff routinely claims costs owed for medical treatment that was billed but often written off or never actually paid out of pocket. Now, rather than presenting the full, undiscounted cost of medical treatment (regardless of whether those amounts were ever paid or expected to be paid by health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), plaintiffs may only recover the reasonable fair market value of medical services actually rendered. This reform is expected to limit exaggerated jury verdict awards and more accurately reflect a plaintiff's real economic loss. Notably, this new legislation also allows for the discoverability and admissibility of agreements where health care providers offer care in exchange for a percentage of a plaintiff's recovery.
Answers and Staying Discovery During Motion Practice
Before, a defendant seeking to dismiss a lawsuit was required to file both an answer and a motion to dismiss simultaneously within thirty (30) days of service of the complaint. To promote judicial economy and limit the burdens of costly pretrial discovery, SB 68 authorizes an automatic stay of discovery while motions to dismiss or motions for a more definite statement are pending. Under the new rule, a defendant now has fifteen (15) days to file an answer if a court denies the pending motion. This rule mirrors federal procedural standards and helps prevent parties from using discovery as leverage before a court has determined whether a claim survives on its own legal merits.
Restrictions on Voluntary Dismissals
Georgia plaintiffs previously enjoyed broad latitude to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuits without prejudice and refile at any time prior to the first witness being sworn, often using this procedural tool to forum-shop, delay adjudication, or simply get another bite at the apple. Now, the new legislation restricts this practice by limiting voluntary dismissals to sixty (60) after an answer is served, or by requiring judicial approval for certain dismissals. The practical result of tighter timeframes for dismissal and refiling means greater certainty for defendants and more efficient case progression.
Preventing Duplicative Attorney's Fees
SB 68 also eliminates the practice of stacking attorney fee awards under multiple overlapping statutory schemes. Defendants have long contended that this practice created unjust windfalls and distorted settlement calculations. By preventing duplicative recovery, the law restores proportionality and encourages a more reasonable resolution of claims.
Bifurcating Fault and Damages at Trial
In most cases involving alleged bodily injury and wrongful death, parties may now demand the bifurcation of trials into two separate phases: the first addressing liability, and the second addressing the amount of compensatory or punitive damages. While a court may deny bifurcation in cases where the amount in controversy is less than $150,000 or in cases involving sexual offenses against minors, this structure is designed to minimize a jury's prejudicial influence, prevent juror confusion, and ensure that decisions on damages are made only after a finding of liability.
Anti-Anchoring Provisions
Under Georgia's old structure, plaintiffs lawyers routinely employed "anchoring" as a tactic to influence juries and potentially recover higher verdicts. This practice involves presenting a jury with a wildly inflated and usually arbitrary dollar amount of a party's alleged noneconomic damages as a reference point to stick in a juror's mind. The new law restricts the use of arbitrary and outsized damage figures presented solely to influence juries, an important guardrail against the psychological effect of so-called "anchoring tactics."
Seatbelt Admissibility in Auto Negligence Cases
Georgia now joins the majority of jurisdictions that permit evidence of seatbelt non-use in civil cases involving automobile accidents. Prior to the reform, juries were precluded from considering whether an injured plaintiff was wearing a seatbelt at the time of a collision, even when that fact was directly relevant to causation or damages. The new rule enhances juror access to pertinent facts and discourages strategic omission of safety-related evidence.
Senate Bill 69: Shining a Light on Third-Party Litigation Funding
While SB 68 addresses the procedural and evidentiary areas of Georgia's tort reform overhaul, Senate Bill 69 tackles a different issue: third-party litigation financing. This practice - where hedge funds, private equity firms, or other outside investors finance litigation in exchange for a portion of the recovery - has expanded rapidly in recent years. Despite its growing influence, litigation finance has operated largely outside the view of courts and litigants.
Effective July 1, 2026, any individual or entity participating in litigation financing in Georgia will be required to register with the State and disclose the presence of third-party funding, the identity of the funder, and the general terms of the agreement. Litigants will also be able to seek discovery on the terms of any litigation financing agreements in a pending action. The objective is not to prohibit funding, but to ensure that courts and opposing parties are aware of who holds a financial stake in the outcome of the case. This reform enables judges to evaluate potential conflicts of interest, promotes accountability, and provides a more accurate picture of litigation dynamics at play.
Implications for Stakeholders
Georgia's 2025 tort reform legislation marks a significant realignment of the state's civil justice system. Cases must now be built on stronger evidentiary foundations with an eye toward transparency and procedural rigor. For businesses, insurers, and defense counsel, these reforms introduce much-needed predictability and reduce the incentive for abusive litigation tactics. For claimants and their counsel, the changes necessitate a strategic recalibration.
While the practical impact of these reforms will depend on how Georgia courts interpret and apply the new provisions, the legislative intent is clear: Georgia is committed to fostering a civil litigation environment that is fair, transparent, and grounded in the rule of law.
WSHB is closely monitoring how these laws are being implemented and advising clients on the implications for case strategy, claims management, and risk mitigation. We will continue to provide updates as appellate decisions, trial court rulings, and administrative guidance clarify the reach and application of these significant legal changes.