On April 21, 2025, Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 68 into law, enacting the most comprehensive tort reform legislation in Georgia since 2005. SB 68 introduces both procedural and substantive changes across multiple areas of personal injury law, including negligent security standards, medical damages evidence, seatbelt admissibility, trial bifurcation, noneconomic damages arguments, voluntary dismissal rules, civil procedure reforms, and attorney fee restrictions. Most provisions of SB 68 apply retroactively to all pending cases as of April 21, 2025. Two categories of provisions apply only prospectively: the negligent security reforms and the phantom damages provisions apply only to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025. The seatbelt admissibility change applies to cases filed after the bill’s signing. Companion legislation SB 69 regulates third-party litigation funding and took effect January 1, 2026. Together, these laws represent a fundamental structural shift in how personal injury cases are litigated in Georgia. The retroactivity framework has three tiers: provisions applying to all pending and future cases (bifurcation, anti-anchoring, discovery stays, attorney fee restrictions); provisions applying only to cases filed after April 21, 2025 (seatbelt admissibility); and provisions applying only to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025 (negligent security reforms, phantom damages). Practitioners must determine which tier applies to each provision for every case in their docket. SB 68’s individual provisions are discussed in detail throughout this series: negligent security reforms in the premises liability coverage; phantom damages in the collateral source and medical damages discussions; seatbelt admissibility in the comparative fault and auto accident coverage; bifurcation in the trial structure analysis; anti-anchoring in the pain and suffering and per diem discussions; and voluntary dismissal restrictions in the limitations and refiling coverage.
102.1. What is the phantom damages provision and how does it change medical damages evidence?
SB 68 addresses the practice of plaintiffs presenting billed medical amounts that exceed what providers actually accept as payment. Under new O.C.G.A. section 51-12-12.1, if the plaintiff has health insurance or workers’ compensation coverage, the jury must be allowed to consider both the amounts charged and the amounts actually necessary to satisfy those charges under the plaintiff’s coverage. The statute explicitly abrogates the common law collateral source rule to the extent needed to admit this evidence. For treatment obtained under letters of protection, SB 68 makes the LOP agreement, itemized charges with billing codes, any sale of the account receivable, and referral information both relevant and discoverable. This provision applies only to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025.
102.2. How does SB 68 change the admissibility of seatbelt evidence in motor vehicle cases?
SB 68 eliminates Georgia’s longstanding “seat belt gag rule” that previously excluded evidence of seatbelt non-use from trial. Under the new provision, evidence of seatbelt use or non-use is admissible on the issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, apportionment of fault, and for any other purpose. The evidence may be used to diminish any recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, occupancy, or operation of a motor vehicle. This is a broader scope than many practitioners anticipated, as it allows seatbelt evidence to factor into the core fault determination, not just the severity of injuries. This provision applies to cases filed after April 21, 2025, not to cases already pending.
102.3. What is the anti-anchoring rule and how does it restrict damages arguments?
SB 68 restricts when and how counsel can argue the monetary value of noneconomic damages to the jury. Under the new rule, counsel may argue the worth or monetary value of noneconomic damages only after the close of evidence. The argument must be rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages and cannot make reference to objects or values having no rational connection to the facts proved by the evidence. This provision targets the plaintiff’s tactic of “anchoring” the jury to a high number early in the trial, particularly during opening statements. The anti-anchoring rule applies retroactively to all pending and future cases.
102.4. How does the statutory right to bifurcation change trial structure?
SB 68 allows any party in a bodily injury or wrongful death case to request that the trial be bifurcated into separate phases for liability and damages. The court must grant the request unless the controversy is below $150,000 or involves certain sexual offenses. If punitive damages are claimed, a third phase addresses punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Phase one addresses liability and fault allocation, and phase two proceeds immediately with the same judge and jury if liability is found. This prevents juries from hearing about injury severity during the liability determination, a change widely viewed as favoring defendants.
102.5. What changes did SB 68 make to negligent security claims?
SB 68 enacted a comprehensive statutory framework for negligent security claims through new code sections O.C.G.A. sections 51-3-50 through 51-3-57. The new framework replaces the prior common law approach with a narrower set of conditions for liability. For invitees, property owners can be liable only if five conditions are met, including a heightened foreseeability standard requiring either a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct or clear and convincing evidence of prior substantially similar crimes on the premises or within 500 yards. The statute mandates fault apportionment to the criminal perpetrator, creates a presumption that the apportionment is unreasonable if perpetrators’ total fault is less than all other parties’ total fault, and establishes multiple exemptions from liability. These provisions apply only to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025.
102.6. What civil procedure reforms did SB 68 introduce?
SB 68 made several procedural changes that affect the early stages of litigation. A defendant who files a motion to dismiss is no longer required to file an answer while the motion is pending; the answer is due 15 days after the court rules. Discovery is automatically stayed until the court rules on the motion to dismiss or the defendant files an answer, whichever comes first. The court must rule within 90 days after briefing concludes. SB 68 also restricts voluntary dismissals without prejudice, aligning Georgia more closely with federal procedural standards. These procedural changes apply retroactively to pending cases.
102.7. How does SB 68 restrict attorney fee recovery?
New O.C.G.A. section 9-15-16 prohibits duplicative recovery of attorneys’ fees, court costs, and litigation expenses under multiple statutory provisions in the same case unless a statute specifically authorizes it. This prevents stacking fee awards under the offer of settlement statute (section 9-11-68) and the bad faith litigation statute (section 13-6-11) in the same case. The provision also bars the admission of contingency fee agreements as evidence of the reasonable value of legal services. These restrictions apply retroactively to all pending and future cases.
102.8. What is the effective date structure and how do practitioners determine which rules apply to a given case?
SB 68’s effective date structure creates a two-track system. Most provisions took effect immediately upon signing on April 21, 2025, and apply retroactively to all pending cases. Two categories of provisions apply only prospectively: the negligent security reforms under the new Article 5 of Chapter 3 and the phantom damages provision under section 51-12-12.1 apply only to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025. The seatbelt admissibility provision applies to cases filed after the bill’s signing. To determine which rules apply, practitioners must identify when the cause of action arose (typically the date of injury) and when the case was filed. Cases with pre-April 2025 injuries but post-April 2025 filing dates require careful analysis of each provision’s applicability. The retroactive application of most provisions to pending cases may face constitutional challenges, and judicial interpretation of the effective date provisions is expected to develop as cases are litigated.
Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this material. Georgia law is subject to change through new legislation and court decisions. Always consult a qualified Georgia attorney for advice specific to your situation.