Ms. White-Stevens,

I was interested to see that former State Representative Clay Cox is FOR tort reform in the Citizen. Senate Bill 68 (“SB 68”) is the tort reform bill approved by Governor Kemp, and Senator Marty Harbin is a sponsor. A review of the sponsors of SB 68 reveals insurance defense attorneys and owners of insurance agencies. We should all be highly critical of such legislation.

It is interesting to note that Senator Harbin owns Harbin Insurance Agency. According to the biography posted online, Senator Harbin “has worked diligently for more than 40 years building a successful business. From two employees to now a team of over twenty, his company serves individuals and businesses throughout the Southeastern United States providing insurance, risk management and investment services.” In other words, his business profits through the sale of insurance policies in exchange for commissions from multibillion-dollar insurance companies. As a proponent of SB 68, I would suggest he may have a conflict of interest.

It is also very interesting that Mr. Cox is from Gwinnett County and CEO of Professional Probation Services, a private probation, corrections, offender management and court services company that operates in more than 50 locations in five states.  But it appears he spends most of his time in the criminal aspects of probation. Clearly, he has not had much time in the civil litigation arena or represented victims injured or killed through the negligence of others.

But I have and wish to offer another perspective based on my experiences representing insurance companies in litigation across Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi and advocating for individuals for over ten years. Currently, I represent individuals and businesses in civil litigation. Here is why SB 68 is not only bad now but also for future victims:

First, the alleged need for SB 68 was based on a false premise.  Insurance premiums are not increasing due to litigation.  It is well documented that insurance premiums have increased due to increased costs to repair vehicles in property damage claims, inflation, damage from increasing weather-related events, and crime.  As admitted by Georgia Insurance Commissioner John King, SB 68 will not lead to a reduction in insurance premiums.

Second, Georgia is not an outlier in any area of law.   What makes Georgia unique is traffic congestion and crime in Atlanta and the fact that Georgians are 200% more likely to be in a traffic accident than the national average.  SB 68 would make Georgia an outlier in terms of its tort law and make it more difficult for average Georgians to bring valid cases.

Third, SB 68 does not address frivolous cases but makes it more difficult to bring valid cases. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Fourth, the data provided by insurance companies on their Georgia claims has not been verified.  Insurance companies in Florida lied to their legislature to get tort reform in 2023 and no one knows if insurance companies in Georgia are lying now.  Not a single insurance company has had anything to say about SB 68, nor have they made any comment about their record profits in 2023 and 2024. One can easily view annual reports of any insurer through a simple Google search.

Fifth, as to Section 7 related to collateral source of SB 68, the law steals the benefit of the injured party’s health insurance contract and gives it to the at-fault party. Such a change in the law punishes people with health insurance and rewards those without.  SB 68 changes 150 years of established Georgia law.  It is premium theft against hardworking Georgians who purchased health insurance. Bad actors like drunk drivers should not be rewarded at the expense of injured victims who purchased their own health insurance.

Sixth, as to Section 8 related to bifurcation of jury trials between liability and damages, the proposed law takes away the trial judge’s discretion to manage his or her courtroom and will inconvenience parties, jurors, and witnesses. I hope we can all agree that individuals and businesses who are negligent, and the insurance companies defending them, should admit fault but this provision will extend trials. I think we all can agree that grieving party should not be required to testify twice about the suffering of a lost one, for example.

Seventh, as to the negligent security/premises liability provisions, the proposed law eliminates responsibility of landowners to take reasonable steps to protect invited guests from known threats. In turn, this makes every community less safe by removing landowner accountability. It may also have a dramatic impact on use of security and employment of part-time police officers in dangerous areas.

Finally, the laws are already written in favor of insurance companies. A jury never hears that a defendant, whether an individual or a business, in a personal injury case has liability insurance. This also means that the jury never hears that the insurance company chooses and pays for the attorney, chooses and often pays the same experts, pays the case expenses, and would pay the verdict/judgment. OCGA 24-4-411, crafted by the same Legislature to bring tort reform, is the evidentiary prohibition because it is “prejudicial.” This scam is nothing more than a fraud upon the jury and Court by insurance defense lawyers. Proponents of SB 68 say the playing field is uneven, insurance companies are getting crushed with high verdicts, and need to introduce evidence of health insurance and medical billing rates because of phantom damages!

The field is already tilted in the favor of the multibillion-dollar phantom pulling the strings behind the scenes and never revealing itself. Let’s tell juries that State Farm, Allstate, Progressive, Auto Owners, etc. are responsible for the delay, deny, defend tactics. We need insurance reform, instead of protecting them further when they fail to account for the suffering of victims.