The plaintiffs bar is sounding the alarm following the release of a slate of proposed changes to Georgia law promulgated by a Senate study committee last year aimed at easing perceived legal burdens on businesses, insurers and health care providers. 

Among those recommendations from the Senate Study Committee on Reducing the Cost of Doing Business: An expansion of Georgia's $250,000 punitive damage cap to cover product liability claims; a bar on claims for "phantom damages," described as medical expenses sought in excess of what an injured person was actually billed; a bar on "jury anchoring," when a lawyer suggests a dollar amount for a plaintiff's pain and suffering; a cap on the interest rate litigation funding companies can charge; and a cap on contingency fees.

There also is a proposal aimed at codifying what must be included in time-limited offers to settle a claim and when it must be accepted. Another idea would require that a landlord facing a premises liability suit over the actions of a third party be shown to have committed an overt act of negligence to be held liable. 

The president of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association said many of the proposals "seek to skew justice by favoring insurance providers and those who negligently harm others." 

The committee "proposed 19 recommendations, most of which would severely limit the rights of Georgia citizens to pursue reparation under the law," said GTLA president Dan Snipes, a partner at Taulbee Rushing Snipes Marsh & Hodgin in Statesboro.

"Georgia's robust economy has continued to prosper" under its current leadership, and has "remained the number one state to do business for seven years running," said Snipes in an emailed statement. 

"Georgia courts and the judges who administer justice provide a level playing field to all litigants, making our fair court system just one of the many reasons that our state continues to thrive economically," Snipes said.

"As the only organization of our kind in Georgia, with the sole purpose of educating, advocating, and preserving our Constitutional rights under the Seventh Amendment, we will vehemently oppose all legislation aimed at restricting access to the court or tipping the scales of justice against those who are harmed by the negligence of others." 

Freeman Mathis & Gary partner Jake Daly, who chairs the Georgia Defense Lawyers Association legislation committee, noted that some of the proposals already are the subject of pending bills, including the phantom damage issue and a bill allowing an accident victim's failure to wear a seatbelt to be admissible in court as evidence of negligence or failure to mitigate his damages. 

GDLA supports that and other pending legislation, said Daly, but the group isn't taking a position on any of the committees' other recommended legislation at this point. 

Those pending bills "are a good example of what GDLA is actively supporting," said Daly. "With phantom damages, for instance, it doesn't make sense to allow someone to get a windfall from medical expenses they didn't pay. It's contrary to the whole concept of compensatory damages."

As to the punitive damages cap, Daly said there's "a certain common sense there. Why treat nonproduct liability cases differently than others?"

"There are few of these that I don't see why anybody would object," Daly said, pointing to recommendations that jury instructions be in writing and that judges be required to issue scheduling orders "in a timely manner"—both of which are also included in legislation introduced last year but still in committee. 

Daly said some of the proposals, such as the caps on contingency fees and litigation funding interest rates, are more properly issues between plaintiffs lawyers and their clients and that GDLA is unlikely to take a position on them. 

"We're supporting legislation that addresses an uneven playing field," said Daly. "We're not trying to make the playing field imbalanced in our favor, but it should be level for us as well."

The legislation creating the study committee said its purpose was to identify legal obstacles that "threaten families, small and large businesses, economic development and all Georgia consumers," and to "fully review and study the issue of Georgia's legal climate and its impact on the cost of doing business and performing healthcare services in Georgia."

It was composed of six state senators and nine citizen members, including members of the defense and plaintiffs bar and individuals from the business, healthcare, insurance and agricultural sectors. 

Its recommendations include:

1. The punitive damage cap.
2. Admissibility of seatbelt use in motor vehicle tort cases. 
3. The phantom damages legislation.
4. The premises liability reform.
5. Changing Georgia's rules of civil procedure so that a plaintiff cannot dismiss a lawsuit without prejudice once an answer has been filed.
6. Enact "proportionality in discovery" to place "reasonable limitations on document discovery" in litigation based on its projected cost, the total amount of damages sought in the lawsuit and the "needs of the case."
7. The "jury anchoring" prohibition.
8. "Default judgment reform" to allow judges "at their discretion" to open a default judgment after the court's term has expired.
9. The requirement for written jury instructions.
10. The cap on interest that can be charged by litigation funding companies. 
11.  The mandatory scheduling orders requirement.
12. Expansion of Georgia's "business judgment rule," which shields officers and directors from liability for business decisions unless gross negligence can be shown, to include nonprofit organizations, foundations and cooperatives.
13. Prohibit "direct action in trucking suits," so that a plaintiff cannot sue a trucking company's insurer. 
14. Reduce costs to Georgia's trucking industry by urging Congress to allow heavier logging trucks on the Federal Interstate Highway System and increase the weight allowed for trucks traveling with Georgia. 
15. Change Georgia's Statute of Repose to "specifically define the notice standard for product liability" and "expressly enforce the 10-year statute of limitations."   
16. The settlement demand proposal calls for a committee of plaintiffs and defense lawyers to craft standards such that material terms in the offer are the only terms to the settlement; apply the law to all personal injury settlements; allow the parties to discuss the terms "without it being considered a counteroffer;" and link the time to settle to the date of the demand. 
17. "Asbestos Trust Transparency" calls for legislation to "require plaintiffs' lawyers to obtain prompt compensation from asbestos trusts" and allow exposure claims and compensation to be considered by a jury.
18. Amend the law governing trials so that either party can demand that a trial be bifurcated into liability and damages portions.
19. The contingency fee cap, which calls for a committee of plaintiffs and defense lawyers to "derive collective wisdom to maximize returns for plaintiffs, while maintaining fair compensation for plaintiffs' attorneys."