By Ted Spaulding
The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of FreightWaves or its affiliates.
For nearly a century, Georgia has stood as one of only four states to allow plaintiffs to sue insurance companies directly after accidents involving tractor-trailers. This long-standing provision, a thorn in the side of insurers and a crucial safeguard for public safety and for ensuring fair compensation, is about to change — and not for the better.
On Monday, Senate Bill 426 takes effect, marking a significant shift in the balance of power between accident victims and insurance companies. The new law significantly limits the ability of Georgians to sue insurance companies, a change that has long been sought by the insurance industry.
Georgia’s soon-to-be-defunct law allowing direct-action lawsuits against truckers’ insurance companies has been in place since the 1930s, making Georgia’s retreat from this position particularly significant. It remains to be seen whether other states will follow suit.
Under the older system, plaintiffs could pursue legal action against an insurance company directly without having to name the insured motor carrier or driver as a defendant. It originally provided a way for injured parties to get fair compensation when a trucking company was attempting to evade responsibility or the owner couldn’t be located. But today, with the prevalence of the internet and the much greater ease of finding people, the number of states that allow direct-action lawsuits is dwindling. The only other three are Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin.
S.B. 426 limits these types of lawsuits, only allowing plaintiffs to sue an insurance company directly if the trucking company has gone bankrupt or is insolvent, as well as when it is impossible to serve the driver or the motor carrier itself. This sets a much higher bar that many victims may struggle to clear.
Gov. Brian Kemp’s decision to sign S.B. 426 into law is hardly surprising. This is tort reform at its finest, the result of typical insurance company lobbying. S.B. 426 is clearly designed to protect insurers’ profits rather than to protect the public from dangerous drivers or enhance public safety on Georgia’s roads.
The best way to lower insurance rates is to put more pressure on companies and drivers to drive more safely. Proponents of S.B. 426 argue that the change will lead to reduced insurance premiums, but this claim is both misleading and shortsighted. Insurance rates may be touted as the motive for passing these types of laws, but the laws’ focus isn’t really rates. If drivers and companies were properly incentivized to operate more safely, there would be fewer accidents, fewer claims and consequently, lower premiums. By focusing on limiting liability rather than promoting safety, S.B. 426 could even have the perverse effect of making our roads more dangerous.
The new law may also have broader implications for road safety. Because insurance companies will now be insulated from direct legal action, the law may reduce the financial incentives for insurers to carefully and properly vet the trucking firms they insure. This, in turn, could potentially lead to more lax safety standards and more dangerous drivers on Georgia roads.
Ultimately, this bill is about one thing: trying to keep jury verdicts as low as possible by removing insurers from the courtroom, creating a scenario in which juries are less likely to award substantial damages. Everybody loves the idea of lower insurance rates until a family member is killed or permanently injured at the hands of a negligent driver. Then they want the company to pay.
The passage of S.B. 426 threatens to deprive Georgians of full and fair compensation after trucking accidents by significantly reducing plaintiffs’ leverage in negotiations and trials. This change could leave many victims struggling to cover medical expenses, lost wages and other costs associated with severe injuries.
In the coming years, the true impact of S.B. 426 will become clear. Will it simply pad the profits of insurance companies while leaving victims with insufficient recourse? Only time will tell. I wouldn’t be surprised if Georgia saw reduced verdicts. It will be interesting to see just how low they go as a consequence of the law.
About the author
Since 2005, Ted Spaulding, Atlanta-based trial attorney and founder of Spaulding Injury Law: Atlanta Personal Injury & Car Accident Lawyer, has worked to help injured victims of negligence and their loved ones win justice in Georgia’s personal injury courts. Spaulding has recently been featured on CNN, commenting on the Maui fires and the Titan submersible tragedy, and in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Associated Press, The Washington Post, CourtTV and many other news outlets.