Georgia Tort Reform: Governor Kemp’s Immediate and Long-Term Goals
As speculation runs rampant about Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp’s potential campaign for the U.S. Senate, one immediate goal of his is certain: comprehensive tort liability reform. GOP leaders in the state have pegged Kemp as their best shot at unseating Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) after internal polling found that Kemp would be the only candidate capable of defeating the incumbent. The governor has refused to confirm or deny his senatorial ambitions, instead reminding Georgians of his priorities this legislative session. Kemp’s eventual decision could be based on his legislations’ success, with large financial interests backing the tort reform campaign, in particular.
A tort refers to an action or an absence of an action that injures a person or property and is therefore subject to civil liability. Plaintiffs who succeed in tort claims often receive monetary compensation as a remedy to their injury. For example, if someone working at a large manufacturing company suffers a catastrophic injury while operating heavy machinery, they could sue their employer and seek compensation for the financial implications of the injury. Damages could be based on lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering, or loss of future earning capacity, among other factors.
Kemp’s two bills aim to limit the awards provided in tort litigation. Senate Bill 68 seeks to cap damages, reduce trial costs, lower property owners’ burdens of proof, and split the jury’s liability and damage decisions into separate phases. It also enforces stricter penalties in tort litigation for not wearing seat belts. Senate Bill 69 regulates litigation financiers by requiring their registration with Georgia’s Department of Banking and Finance, barring foreign entities from funding litigation, and holding financiers liable for damages incurred by the parties they support.
Defending his reforms, Kemp noted that “the five-year average of claims has increased 25%, much faster than the growth in our population.” He continued, “the percentage of cases with legal representation that awarded the full limit of the insurance policy continues to increase far outpacing those without, and the number of large claim awards over $1 million also has steadily increased.”
Groups from across the state have come out in support of the legislation. The Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) argues that while the state government has laws limiting compensation for tort claims made against itself, cities have no such protection. The result, they argue, has been fiscal crises for cities facing hefty legal dues. The City of Milton, for example, was found liable for the tragic passing of college student Joshua Chang, and the jury awarded the plaintiff $32 million in damages, approximately 85 percent of Milton’s annual budget.
The Georgia Hospital Association (GHA) sees excessive jury awards as driving physicians out of the state due to fear of personal liability. Rural areas in particular are at risk of specialized physicians closing up shop and heading elsewhere, which could be dangerous if communities are forced to travel far across the state to seek care. Without tort reform, GHA argues that providers in Georgia feel unsafe to practice. GHA’s calls have been joined by many other health care professionals looking for protection.
The brunt of support, however, comes from the business community. Kemp has claimed that small businesses need the reform the most, stating, “I think all the industry advocates that are out there, the small business owners like myself and many members of the general assembly, this is not an issue where legislators need to hear from your lobbyist. You need to hear from people in your district, you know, your small town grocery store…” Georgia Trend reported on a small landscaping service that was forced to pay $200,000 after one of their trucks damaged a car. The service, Russell Landscaping, has called for reform to the system to avoid having to pay such large sums of money. But small businesses are only one part of the industry backing tort reform.
Despite Kemp’s lieutenant governor, Burt Jones (R-GA), painting the bill as “not a pro-insurance, big insurance company bill,” the insurance industry has nevertheless thrown its whole weight behind the reforms. The interest of insurance companies is clear: insurers lose money as damages increase in size. Insurance companies, Kemp argues, have increased their premiums because of inordinate sums of money being awarded to tort claimants, so the bills he proposed would therefore prevent insurance premiums from increasing. Were Kemp to lose the favor of the insurance industry, he would also lose a significant source of campaign financing. Over the course of his political career, he’s received a total of $832,945 in campaign donations from the insurance industry, and that estimate only includes direct donations from insurance companies.
Even with the large financial backing behind tort reform, the prospects of the bills passing in full form are not certain. Kemp’s package is set to create significant fights both within and between parties. The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, an organization with considerable influence over both chambers of the State Legislature, sees the bills as the wrong solution to an overblown issue. The GTLA argues that there is no evidence insurance companies will reduce premiums in response to reform. They cite the fact the insurance industry has continued to increase premiums despite record profits. The mammoth verdicts often cited represent a small fraction of cases, they argue.
The GTLA exerts a strong influence primarily because many legislators are lawyers themselves and understand the significance of the proposed changes. The Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Stan Gunter (R-8), is a lawyer and has practiced private injury law before. The House Majority Leader, Chuck Efstration (R-104), actively practices private injury law, putting him in a very precarious situation now that the bill has made it out of the Senate. Kemp will have to lobby intensely to get the backing of the representatives whose income sources are directly targeted by the bills. A likely scenario is the House amending the legislation, finding a middle ground acceptable to both sides.
Most voters aren’t paying attention to the legislation—after all, liability law and insurance policy are rarely front-page news. But that’s precisely what makes this issue so concerning. These changes would affect everyday citizens seeking legal recourse for civil injuries, making it harder to receive just compensation. Georgians are all one tragic accident away from filing for damages, and Kemp’s reform would strictly regulate that process in ways that limit the payout insurance companies have to provide.
One may wonder why Governor Kemp chose such a polarizing issue in the legislature, yet unappealing to the public, to focus his efforts on this year. State Senator Josh McLaurin (D-14), a Democrat representing north Fulton County, believes Kemp has been politically and financially captured by the insurance industry. He said to WABE, a member station of the National Public Radio, “Insurance companies are making billions of dollars of profit in Georgia and nationwide, and they are threatening to leave the state if they don’t make as much profit as they want.” He continued, “So what they have done is put Brian Kemp and Georgia businesses in a hostage situation. And unfortunately what is happening is the insurance companies have blamed a red herring.”
Kemp has hinted at a bid for the US Senate in 2026, challenging Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA), and his cuddling up with the insurance industry and the broader business sector could provide a large financial backing for his campaign. Whether or not he does run in 2026, it is safe to say that Governor Kemp has his eyes on the future as he pushes for tort reform.