National Litigation Trends in Tort Reform: Georgia Leading the Charge

In recent years, the national civil litigation landscape has begun to shift under the weight of escalating verdicts, rising insurance costs, and mounting business pressure. Georgia has placed itself at the forefront of that shift this year with the passage of Senate Bills 68 and 69 (SB 68 and SB 69). This robust tort reform package, spearheaded by Governor Brian Kemp, has put Georgia in the spotlight amid nationwide efforts to balance concerns of due process with the very real impact of increasingly onerous civil suits.

Georgia’s reforms aren’t merely aspirational — they are functional, focused, and already reshaping litigation strategy. For trial lawyers operating nationally, Georgia is not just a case study; it’s a bellwether. This article explores how Georgia’s litigation compares to similar reforms in other states, examines national litigation trends driving these changes, and outlines where we may see the next wave of tort reform emerge.

Georgia’s Tort Reform Package: SB 68 and SB 69

Signed by Governor Brian Kemp on April 21, SB 68 and SB 69 were born out of urgency. Verdicts in the eight- and nine-figure range, often called “nuclear verdicts,” have grown to the extent that they are no longer outliers, leading to a corollary rise in settlement values. Georgia became a perennial favorite on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s Judicial Hellholes list.

The upsurge in high-dollar verdicts and settlements was perhaps most commonly seen in “negligent security” cases. These claims are a subset of premises liability, in which owners and occupiers of land can be held liable for the wrongful acts third parties committed on their premises. This cause of action was created by judicial precedent and was previously unencumbered by the legislature, often resulting in businesses being held disproportionately liable for these unforeseen criminal acts.

With SB 68, the General Assembly stepped in to create a new, narrower standard for negligent security claims. The comprehensive reforms provide statutory clarity on what constitutes a viable claim and introduce categorical exemptions that limit liability for certain classes of plaintiffs. Additionally, the reforms mandate reasonable apportionment of verdicts among those at fault, ending the long-standing problem of “deep pocket defendants” absorbing disproportionate liability in these claims.

SB 68 also seeks to alleviate the burdens of Georgia’s civil litigation landscape by curbing “phantom” medical damages, reigning in “anchoring tactics” used by counsel to improperly influence verdicts, and allowing bifurcation of civil jury trials—separating liability from damages to prevent sympathy-driven outcomes.

Complementing SB 68, SB 69 regulates third-party litigation financing. The bill requires funders to register with Georgia’s Department of Banking and Finance, prohibits funders from influencing litigation strategy, mandates disclosure of terms, and limits involvement in foreign entities deemed national security threats. It goes into full effect on January 1, 2026. Together, these reforms reshape Georgia’s tort reform landscape by balancing fairness with procedural integrity.

This legislation is not about ideology—it’s about predictability, fairness and curtailing both nuclear verdicts and the resulting inflation of settlement values.

Florida: A Parallel with Its Own Challenges

In March 2023, Florida passed HB 837, the state’s most comprehensive tort reform in two decades. While Georgia’s goals echoed Florida’s—reduce litigation costs, limit phantom damages and curb plaintiff-side abuses—the structure of the reform reflects different political and procedural priorities.

HB 837’s most impactful provisions are:

• Florida’s shift from pure comparative fault to a modified 51% bar, eliminating recovery for plaintiffs more than 50% at fault.
• A limitation on phantom medical damages, requiring disclosure of actual amounts paid and making attorney-referral relationships discoverable.
• A presumption against liability for multifamily property owners in premises liability claims, provided they implement a list of security measures and crime deterrence strategies.
• Significant restrictions on bad faith insurance claims and one-way attorney fees, offering new defenses to insurers and aligning attorney fee awards with the federal lodestar method.

What’s notable in Florida post-reform is what has happened as a result of a litigation surge that occurred before the bill’s passage. Approximately 82,000 civil cases were filed in the weeks leading up to enactment as plaintiffs’ firms raced to beat the deadline, creating a bifurcated litigation environment: one track under old law, another under HB 837. As Florida courts gradually sort through the post-reform cases, defense attorneys report that early results have been promising—lowered settlement values and better predictability in verdict ranges are beginning to emerge. Florida’s reforms reflect meaningful changes based on state-specific issues attorneys had wrestled with for many years.

What makes Georgia’s approach unique is precision. Where Florida establishes broader presumptions, Georgia enforces them with statutory mandates. For example, Georgia’s negligent security law doesn’t just presume fault allocation—it requires a new trial if fault is not reasonably assigned to the criminal third party. While Florida limits anchoring through broader evidentiary controls, Georgia prohibits specific language, dictates the timing of arguments, and prescribes remedies for violations both during and after voir dire. While Florida’s treatment of letters of protection is robust; Georgia goes further by requiring disclosure of receivable sales and referral sources.

In short, Georgia’s reforms build on Florida’s by doing more than create presumptions; they provide enforceable trial tools that allow counsel to shift the calculus on early resolution, trial strategy and liability exposure.

Trends in Other States: Momentum and Momentum Killers

Several other states have taken steps—some large, others tentative—toward similar reforms.

Often hailed as a pioneer in tort reform with its landmark HB 4 (2003), Texas continues to explore litigation financing limits and damage calculation changes. In 2025, SB 30 and SB 39 sought to restrict inflated damages, tighten evidentiary rules, and increase transparency in lawyer-provided referral relationships. However, both efforts stalled after facing opposition and substantial amendments. Nonetheless, Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a well-established advocacy group, has signaled that these efforts will be renewed in a later legislative session.

Louisiana policymakers are reviewing revisions to the collateral source rule and considering whether to expand discovery related to medical damages. SB 231 and related legislative efforts aim to permit juries to see evidence of insurance payments and medical write-offs. While these proposals have generated significant support from insurance and defense groups, comprehensive reform has not yet been enacted.

In Connecticut, legislation under consideration would penalize plaintiffs who reject reasonable settlement offers and then fail to recover more at trial. The proposed reform would impose cost shifting, including potential exposure to defendants’ attorneys fees. While procedural, the bill represents a shift toward incentivizing early resolution and deterring inflated demands.

Illinois and Pennsylvania, with jurisdictions like Cook County and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, are often named top Judicial Hellholes. Both have seen massive verdicts and entrenched plaintiff bars. Illinois’ last tort reform (2005) was struck down in 2010, and no substantial progress has occurred since. Pennsylvania has not seen major reform since the 2011 Fair Share Act. Georgia’s apportionment of fault and bifurcation statutes could offer these states a legislative roadmap if political winds shift.

What’s Next? Predicting the Future of Reform

The litigation pressures driving reform are unlikely to subside. Nuclear verdicts, while infrequent, distort risk calculations and inflate settlement ranges across entire jurisdictions. What often goes unseen are the hundreds of confidential seven- and eight-figure settlements paid in fear of what a jury might do.

States with established legislative majorities and a history of judicial deference—such as South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi—are natural next adopters. Meanwhile, states like New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania that have high claim values and national insurance carriers may be forced to act if commercial premiums continue rising and insurer exits continue.

There is also an emerging possibility of regional modeling. Defense-side policymakers may use Georgia and Florida’s success to frame multistate campaigns with shared language on damages evidence, litigation finance and premises liability—especially in areas like the Southeast where state lines do not define media markets or jury psychology.

Georgia Sets the Standard

Georgia’s tort reform is not a political issue; it is practical. It maintains plaintiffs’ due process rights while providing defendants with tools to reach fair outcomes. By codifying rules that limit gamesmanship, clarify liability and restrict speculative damages, Georgia has addressed key litigation pain points with real consequences.

Florida’s reforms are similarly consequential, though perhaps broader and more sweeping. Texas remains a national model, albeit one needing updates. And as other states face increasing business costs and litigation risks, Georgia’s blueprint—structured, enforceable and balanced—will likely serve as a template.

Those of us at Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial, with our national trial presence, are already seeing how Georgia’s reforms are changing strategy, procedural posture and settlement dynamics. We are monitoring developments in jurisdictions like South Carolina, Texas, Pennsylvania, and beyond as businesses nationwide hope for relief.

If the Georgia model proves durable—and early signs suggest it will—then relief may be on its way.