Реформа ответственности в Джорджии привела к снижению страховых премий

Few of Gov. Brian Kemp’s policy initiatives have sparked as much controversy as his efforts to rein in rampant lawsuit abuse. He began championing this in 2023, and at the time, Georgia had one of the country’s most problematic civil justice systems – particularly burdening insurers and consumers. A 2023 study even found that the broken tort system annually resulted in about 124,000 fewer jobs locally and it increased costs on each Georgian by about $1,200. Despite this, opposition – largely from the Democratic caucus and trial lawyers – mounted, and their message was consistent: the governor’s tort reforms won’t help Georgians. Kemp and company pressed ahead anyway and ultimately prevailed by the narrowest of margins. In 2025, he signed the proposals into law, and while it can take many years to determine the success of any public policy, early returns appear incredibly promising to the dismay of naysayers who claimed they would invite disaster. The doomsday predictions were curious given the scope of the reforms. As I wrote previously, the measure in question – Senate Bill 68 – simply aimed “to curb lawsuit abuse in many ways, including limiting attorneys from cherry-picking more favorable judicial jurisdictions; permitting juries to consider seat belt usage in car accident cases; ending jury awards for phantom damages; and reforming premises liability so that companies are not unfairly held responsible for injuries that occur near their businesses.” To most people, these probably sound like common-sense approaches. However, tort reform critics suggested that they would prevent victims from receiving justice and big companies would financially benefit from these reforms without passing the savings onto customers. One outspoken activist even said that insurers don’t reduce premiums after tort reform. They simply pocket the savings. Those predictions sound concerning, but do they hold water? Fast forward to 2026, and the sky has not fallen. In fact, plaintiffs continue to have their days in court and get the justice that they deserve, which is essential in a fair and balanced judicial system. As for the other charge, one tort reform opponent asserted, if lawsuit reform worked, then we would see premiums falling. If only we had data to address this claim. Oh wait, we do. In late 2025, Georgia’s Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner announced that Liberty Mutual planned to reduce premiums by an average of 5.7%, State Farm by a total average of 10% from the previous year and Safeco by around 5%. In February of this year, Allstate filed plans to reduce rates by 5%. In April, Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company introduced plans to reduce premiums by over 10%, and in June, filings showed that USAA would “lower rates, on average, by 4.7% at Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 4.5% for USAA Casualty Insurance Company and 2.4% for USAA General Indemnity Company,” according to WSB-TV. And so on and so on. This mirrors the success of tort reform elsewhere, and while the expectation from insiders was that tort reform would at the very least slow the rate of premium increases, they are coinciding with rate decreases. Correlation is not causation, and there are a host of factors that influence insurance rates. Yet tort reform has been one of – if not the – most significant policy changes affecting Georgia insurers in recent years. According to Georgia’s Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner John King, it is undoubtedly one of the primary drivers. In an op-ed, he wrote, “Georgia took meaningful steps to restore balance to its legal system, while preserving the right of every Georgian to seek justice when they’ve been wronged […] One year later, the early results are not just encouraging, they are measurable. Insurance costs are beginning to stabilize and, in many cases, decline.” MARTA provides further evidence of this. In its fiscal year 2027 proposed budget, the transit agency forecasted the need for $27 million for casualty and liability costs, compared to $69 million in fiscal year 2025. The reason for this drop was – per a MARTA spokesman – “a reduced risk profile due to tort reform.” No one can predict how long insurance premiums will remain on this downward trajectory. Rates result from complex calculations that represent risk, and if risk exposure increases – say due to a spate of large natural disasters – then rates will too. That aside, given the early results following tort reform, it seems amazing that this was ever controversial. Marc Hyden is the senior director of state government affairs at the R Street Institute. You can follow him on X at @marc_hyden.