On April 21, 2025, Governor Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 68 into law. It is the most comprehensive revision to Georgia’s civil litigation framework in two decades, and it directly affects how car accident cases are evaluated, litigated, and settled in this state. If your accident occurred after April 21, 2025, this law governs your case. If your accident occurred before that date, several provisions still apply to your pending lawsuit retroactively.
This page provides the hub overview of SB 68’s impact on car accident claims. Each major provision is summarized here with links to dedicated pages that analyze the most consequential changes in detail.
What Changed and What Stayed the Same
SB 68 did not change the statute of limitations for personal injury claims (still two years under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33), the modified comparative negligence 50% bar rule (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33), the basic four elements of negligence, or the minimum insurance coverage requirements. The legal foundations remain intact.
What SB 68 changed is how damages are calculated and argued, how trials are structured, how defendants can challenge cases procedurally, and what evidence about the plaintiff’s physical condition is admissible.
Effective Date Rules: What Applies to Which Cases
Not all SB 68 provisions took effect the same way. The effective date rules determine which law governs your case:
“Phantom damages” / medical billing reform (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1): Applies only to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025. The trigger is the date of the accident, not the date the lawsuit was filed. If your accident occurred on April 20, 2025, the old collateral source rule governs your medical damages. If your accident occurred on April 22, 2025, the new rule applies.
Seatbelt evidence admissibility (O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1): Applies to actions commenced on or after April 21, 2025. The trigger is when the lawsuit was initiated, not when the accident occurred. An accident that occurred in 2024 but was filed as a lawsuit after April 21, 2025, is subject to the new seatbelt evidence rule.
All other provisions (noneconomic damage argument restrictions, bifurcation option, motion to dismiss discovery stays, voluntary dismissal restrictions, double recovery prohibition for attorney fees): Apply retroactively to all pending cases and all future cases, regardless of when the accident occurred.
“Phantom Damages”: How Medical Damage Calculations Changed
Before SB 68, Georgia’s collateral source rule prevented defendants from showing juries what a plaintiff’s health insurance actually paid for medical treatment. A hospital might bill $80,000 for a surgery, but the plaintiff’s insurance negotiated a rate of $18,000 and paid that amount in full satisfaction. The $62,000 difference was written off by the hospital under its contract with the insurer. Under the old rule, the jury saw only the $80,000 billed amount. The gap between billed and paid — money that was billed but never paid and never owed by anyone — is what critics called “phantom damages.”
SB 68 eliminated this protection. Under the new O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1, for accidents occurring on or after April 21, 2025, defendants can introduce evidence of the amount “actually necessary to satisfy” the medical charges, meaning what was actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff through health insurance, workers’ compensation, or other coverage. Juries now see both the billed amount and the paid amount, and they use both figures to determine what the statute calls the “reasonable value” of the medical treatment.
Neither number automatically controls. The jury is not required to award the billed amount or the paid amount. They determine reasonable value with both data points available. But the practical effect is directional: when juries see that a $50,000 bill was satisfied by a $12,000 insurance payment, medical damages awards tend to move toward the lower figure.
The secondary effect compounds the reduction. Pain and suffering calculations frequently use medical damages as a multiplier base. If the medical damages baseline drops from $50,000 to $15,000, a 3x pain and suffering multiplier produces $45,000 instead of $150,000. The “phantom damages” change can reduce total case value by far more than the medical billing difference alone.
For the full analysis of the medical damages calculation change, including the insured-versus-uninsured paradox and the impact on Letters of Protection, see How SB 68 Changed Medical Damage Calculations in Georgia.
Restrictions on Pain and Suffering Arguments
Under the amended O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184, attorneys can no longer argue arbitrary dollar amounts for noneconomic damages like pain and suffering during trial. The arguments must be “rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages.” References to unrelated benchmarks, such as what a professional athlete earns or the value of art or luxury goods, are now prohibited.
A second restriction is arguably more consequential than the first: if an attorney suggests a specific dollar amount for noneconomic damages in closing argument, they must have stated the same amount in opening argument. No new number can be introduced for the first time in closing.
This creates a structural problem for plaintiffs. Once the plaintiff’s attorney commits to a dollar figure in opening, the defense spends the entire trial attacking that specific number. Every piece of evidence suggesting lesser injury, every gap in treatment, every inconsistency in testimony becomes ammunition against the number the plaintiff’s own attorney set. If the attorney hedges in opening to avoid locking in a number, they may lose the ability to argue any specific dollar amount in closing.
SB 68 does not simply limit what plaintiff’s attorneys can say. It gives the defense a new tool to use against whatever they do say. The expected practical effect is lower noneconomic damage awards in Georgia trials.
This provision applies retroactively to all pending and future cases.
Seatbelt Evidence Is Now Admissible
For decades, Georgia law under the former O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 barred evidence of seatbelt non-use in civil cases. Defense attorneys could not tell the jury that the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. Even if expert testimony would have established that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been dramatically reduced by a seatbelt, that evidence was excluded.
SB 68 eliminated this protection. Seatbelt non-use is now admissible on issues of negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, and apportionment of fault. Courts retain discretion to exclude the evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, but this is a case-by-case judicial determination, not a categorical exclusion.
The practical impact operates on two tracks. The comparative fault track: the defense argues that by not wearing a seatbelt, the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for their own safety, increasing the plaintiff’s fault percentage and reducing recovery proportionally. The causation track: the defense argues that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been less severe or would not have occurred at all if they had been wearing a seatbelt, presenting biomechanical expert testimony to quantify the difference.
Studies and case experience from other jurisdictions suggest that seatbelt non-use evidence can result in meaningful additional comparative fault being assigned to the plaintiff — in some reported cases, 10 to 30 additional percentage points, though outcomes vary significantly by jurisdiction and case facts. In a Georgia case near the 50% threshold, even a modest seatbelt fault allocation can be the difference between a recovery and a complete bar.
This provision applies to actions commenced on or after April 21, 2025. For the full analysis of the seatbelt defense, including how defendants prove seatbelt non-use and how plaintiffs can counter the argument, see The Seatbelt Defense in Georgia Car Accident Cases.
Bifurcation and Trifurcation: Split Trials
SB 68 allows any party in a personal injury or wrongful death case to elect to split the trial into two or three phases:
Phase 1 addresses liability and fault allocation only. The jury decides who was at fault and what percentage each party bears, without hearing evidence about the severity of injuries or the dollar amount of damages.
Phase 2 addresses compensatory damages: medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other compensation. This phase occurs only if Phase 1 results in a finding that the defendant was liable.
Phase 3 addresses punitive damages, if applicable. This phase occurs only if the plaintiff established both liability and compensatory damages in the first two phases. Georgia law requires compensatory damages as a foundation for punitive damages; punitive damages cannot stand alone. If Phase 2 produces zero compensatory damages, Phase 3 does not proceed.
A court can reject the bifurcation election only when the amount in controversy is less than $150,000 or when the case involves injuries from sexual offenses.
Why defendants elect bifurcation: it separates the liability finding from the damages evidence. Photographs of severe injuries, testimony about daily suffering, and emotional testimony from family members are powerful evidence that can influence how a jury assesses fault. Bifurcation prevents this evidence from being heard during the liability phase, which tends to produce more analytically detached fault determinations.
This provision applies retroactively to all pending and future cases. For the full analysis of how bifurcated trials work, see Jury Trials in Georgia Car Accident Cases.
The Discovery Stay: Evidence Disappears While the Case Is Paused
Under SB 68, defendants can file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. When they do, discovery is automatically stayed, meaning frozen, while the court considers the motion. If the court does not rule within 90 days, a party can move to modify or end the stay.
This procedural change has a consequence that is not immediately obvious: during the discovery stay, time-sensitive evidence continues to disappear on its natural schedule. Dashcam footage is typically overwritten within 24 to 72 hours of recording. Surveillance cameras at businesses usually cycle their storage within 7 to 30 days. EDR (black box) data can be lost when a vehicle is repaired or scrapped. Witness memories degrade with each passing week.
The practical response for plaintiffs: issue evidence preservation demand letters (spoliation letters) to all relevant parties immediately upon filing suit, before the discovery stay takes effect. A preservation demand can even be sent before a lawsuit is filed. The demand notifies the recipient that evidence is relevant to anticipated litigation and that destruction may result in legal sanctions. It does not require an active lawsuit to be effective.
For details on spoliation letters, evidence preservation timelines, and what evidence disappears on what schedule, see Admissible Evidence in Georgia Car Accident Cases.
Voluntary Dismissal Restrictions
Under prior Georgia law, a plaintiff could dismiss a case without prejudice at any time before the first witness was sworn at trial. This allowed strategic repositioning: a plaintiff could file in one venue, then dismiss and refile in a different county perceived as more favorable. It could also be used to avoid unfavorable rulings or reset the case.
SB 68 substantially restricted this. A plaintiff may now voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice only within 60 days of the defendant filing an answer. After that 60-day window closes, voluntary dismissal requires court permission. The court considers factors including prejudice to the defendant, the stage of the proceeding, and whether the plaintiff is seeking to avoid an adverse ruling.
This provision applies retroactively to all pending and future cases.
No Double Recovery of Attorney Fees
Under the new O.C.G.A. § 9-15-16, a plaintiff cannot recover the same attorney fees under multiple statutory provisions in a single case. If two different Georgia statutes both authorize attorney fee recovery, only one award is permitted. The law also prohibits using a contingency fee agreement as evidence of the reasonableness of the attorney fees claimed.
Additionally, SB 68 amended O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11, which previously allowed recovery of attorney fees and litigation expenses in tort actions for bad faith conduct, stubborn litigiousness, or causing unnecessary trouble and expense. Under SB 68, this statute now applies only to contract actions, removing it as a fee-recovery tool in personal injury cases. The first-party bad faith penalty under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 (which provides a penalty of up to 50% of the insurer’s liability plus reasonable attorney fees) remains intact and unaffected by SB 68.
Companion Legislation: SB 69 and Litigation Funding
SB 69, signed alongside SB 68, addresses third-party litigation funding, which is the practice of outside investors financing lawsuits in exchange for a portion of the recovery. SB 69 requires litigation funders to register with the state, limits their involvement in legal strategy decisions, and makes funding agreements subject to discovery. Funders who financially support a case may face liability if sanctions are imposed.
For plaintiffs using pre-settlement funding or whose medical treatment is being financed by third-party companies (a practice sometimes associated with Letter of Protection arrangements), SB 69 creates new transparency requirements that did not previously exist.
Constitutional Challenges: Current Status
As of March 2026, SB 68 is in full effect. No court has enjoined any provision of the law. The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA) has been the primary organizational voice opposing SB 68. GTLA and affiliated plaintiff’s attorneys have raised constitutional concerns on multiple grounds.
The noneconomic damages anchoring restrictions (O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184) face challenges on First Amendment grounds (restricting attorney speech during closing argument) and Seventh Amendment/Georgia constitutional jury trial grounds (interfering with the jury’s traditional role in assessing damages without arbitrary limitations on advocacy).
The seatbelt admissibility provision faces challenge on the grounds that it retroactively changes evidentiary rules for conduct that occurred when seatbelt evidence was inadmissible, potentially creating due process concerns for plaintiffs who made seatbelt decisions under the prior legal framework.
The collateral source rule modification (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1) faces challenge on grounds that it effectively transfers the benefit of the plaintiff’s insurance premiums to the defendant, potentially violating equal protection principles.
As of the publication date of this guide, no Georgia court has issued a ruling on the constitutionality of any SB 68 provision. Cases challenging these provisions are working through the trial court level, and appellate decisions are likely months to years away. The practical guidance remains: SB 68 is the law until a court says otherwise. Cases filed today should be prepared under SB 68’s rules. But any case with a multi-year timeline should be tracked against constitutional challenge developments, because a successful challenge would restore pre-SB 68 rules for affected provisions.
What Accident Victims Should Do Differently Under SB 68
Compared to pre-April 2025 practice, SB 68 changes several practical priorities:
Document medical billing more carefully. Obtaining Explanation of Benefits (EOB) documents from your health insurer for every medical service related to the accident is now more important than before. The EOB shows both the billed amount and the paid amount. Under SB 68, both figures are now potentially visible to a jury. Understanding the gap between billed and paid helps evaluate the realistic medical damages component of a case.
Reach Maximum Medical Improvement before settling. This was always important, but SB 68 makes it more so. Under the new reasonable value standard, future medical expenses must be projected and argued with greater precision. Settling before treatment has stabilized means settling before the full picture is clear. For MMI timing and why it matters, see Medical Damages in Georgia Car Accident Cases.
Seatbelt use is now a damages issue. If you are in an accident after April 21, 2025, and you were not wearing a seatbelt, that fact is now admissible evidence that can reduce your recovery. If you were wearing your seatbelt, document it: tell the responding officer, note it in any written account of the accident, and preserve any evidence (EDR data, witness statements) that confirms it.
Evidence preservation is more urgent under SB 68. The discovery stay provisions make early spoliation demand letters more critical than ever. Evidence that would normally be gathered through formal discovery during the first months of litigation is now at risk of disappearing during a 90-day stay. Preservation steps taken before litigation begins carry greater weight under the new framework.
This guide covers SB 68’s impact on Georgia car accident claims as of March 2026. SB 68 was signed April 21, 2025, and its provisions are in full effect with no injunctions issued as of the date of this publication. Constitutional challenges may be pending; verify current status before relying on this information for an active case. Laws change. This information is educational and does not constitute legal advice. If you need advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.
Last updated: March 2026
