School Vouchers Bill Up for a Vote

School-voucher legislation comes up for the first legislative vote in decades.

Sen. Eric Johnson, R-Savannah, sponsored Senate Bill 90. Polls show overwhelming support among the public but little enthusiasm among professional educators.

Opponents are lobbying against it right up until the Senate vote.

Legislative Days 25 and 26

The biggest news over these past two legislative days had to be the death of HB 200 on the House Floor. HB 200 would have allowed for the failure to wear a seatbelt to be admissible in civil cases. Together, GTLA and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce worked to hammer out a compromise that both parties could support.

The bill was introduced from the well and questions were answered. Representatives began to question why a victim in a car accident would be revictimized in a court of law. Momentum began to build against the bill.

The Speaker of the House called for the vote and the bill failed 15-143.

SB 108, the Victim Pays provision of the Governor's Tort Reform Package passed the Senate Special Judiciary Committee as well. The orgiginal language was replaced with the language found in HB 414. SB 108 no longer contains the Victim Pays provision, but it does allow for a Stay of Discovery.

Legislative Days 17 and 18

Newspaper articles and blogs around the nation are starting to take interest in the Governor's tort deform legislation, SB 101 and SB 108. There is a great post on The PopTart examining this legislative effort and what happened in Michigan, the only state to pass a similar bill to SB 101. The bill didn't bring jobs to Michigan-- and it didn't stop jobs from leaving the state either. All it did was bar a citizen in Michigan who was injured or killed by a pharmaceutical company from seeking justice in a fair court of law.

On Thursday, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee heard testimony and voted on SB 133, an expansion of the Georgia Health Share Volunteers in Medicine Act. This bill would allow nurses, doctors, dentists, etc. to all receive payment in a health clinic and still be immune from liability as long as the patients are poor and receive the care for free.

I understand wanting to reward medical professionals for working in a safety-net clinic. In fact, the GTLA team came up with many ways to reward such a professional. But the committee didn't seem interested in alternatives.

In order to reward a doctor, why must we punish the patient?

Fundamentally, it just seems wrong. Stripping people just above the federal poverty of the Constitutional Rights is unjust.

We will be back in session next Tuesday for Day 19...

Legislative Days 14 and 15

Yesterday the Governor's so-called "tort reform" package made it into the Hopper. The press releases sent by GTLA are in the posts below.

Today, the bills were read for the first time and assigned to committee. Both pieces went to the Senate Special Judiciary Committee. The author, Senator Bill Cowsert and co-signer Senator Judson Hill are both on the committee. The Chairman of the Senate Special Judiciary Committee, Senator John Wiles, also signed the bill.

It wasn't until later today that the Governor released his press release regarding these bills. He still argues that these bills would be good for business.

Michigan, the only state to pass a bill like SB 101, did not reap business rewards. Not only did their bill fail to bring new business into the state, Michigan actually lost business and jobs.

Meeting a product standard isn't enough-- a Letter to the Editor in the AJC

Government regulations provide no assurance that any product is truly safe. The Titanic carried lifeboats with a capacity of less than half those on board, yet it satisfied all government safety regulations at the time. Gov. Sonny Perdue and the AJC's Jim Wooten ("Limiting lawsuits, college access, bike theft," @issue, Jan. 16) want to insulate companies from responsibility for injuries their products cause if the products meet government standards.

Why do supposed conservatives such as Wooten and Perdue suspend their normal suspicion of all things governmental and ignore their mantra of self-responsibility by allowing government to insulate a manufacturer of a harmful product from responsibility? They say it will attract business, but no business I want. "Come to Georgia: You can hurt our citizens and they won't be able to do anything about it" is hardly the slogan we should use to attract anyone.

Tom Stubbs
Stubbs is a Decatur attorney.

Day 3 of the Legislative Session

The Senate and the House were in for just a short while before the Governor delivered his "State of the State" address this morning. Interestingly, Governor Perdue made no mention of the so-called "tort-reform" measures that he touted at yesterday's Eggs and Issues breakfast.

The talk in the halls indicate the bills will be dropped by the 6th day of session. GTLA has continued to discuss these issues with legislators and the press. Today's editorial in the AJC by Maureen Downey, "Drugmaker immunity is a poison pill,"does an incredible job of illustrating the dangers of giving blanket immunity to pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. Her arguments against such proposed legislation are accurate and compelling.

Tomorrow several committees will hold meetings. While these are mostly for organizational purposes, we should be able to find out who on is on what subcommittee. And we should know the Speaker's decision about who will sit on what committee.

Day 2 of the Legislative Session

In comparison with Day 1, Day 2 was decidedly eventful.

This morning at the Eggs and Issues Breakfast Governor Perdue called for more sweeping 'tort reform' measures in Georgia including,complete immunity from lawsuits for any Georgia corporation manufacturing medical devices or pharmaceuticals if the products have been approved by the FDA, a loser-pays provision requiring that the losing side in a civil suit pay the legal fees of the winning side if the case is dismissed "at the earliest possible stage," and testing the legal merits of a case before the process of discovery begins.

We could offer significantly more information on these bills had we been given notice that they were part of his agenda or if we could see the drafts.

Andy Peters over at the Fulton County Daily Report dug around and has some additional information available in his article online.

With the economy a mess, a budget shortfall and serious issues facing our state, why would Governor Perdue decide-- when folks are already facing hard times-- to eradicate citizens' Constitutional Rights?

Corporate immunity is not the answer to a flailing economy. The very idea of completely immunizing an industry basically erases any incentive for that industry to manufacture safe products-- because they no longer are accountable for negligence.

We are preparing our talking points and media plan now-- and we will post what we can when we are able to. Andy Peter's article indicated that the bills would be filed this week or by the 26th of January at the latest...

There will be more to come on this...

Georgians don't always get what they pay for

For Immediate Release
(404)376-3495, Rebecca DeHart

SB 276, a bill ensuring fairness for auto-insurance policy holders passes the House Non-Civil Judiciary Committee unanimously and heads to House Rules.

Atlanta-- Insurance companies in Georgia collect premiums on Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM) Coverage but may never pay out—even after a catastrophic accident. Following a year in which Insurance Companies raked in record profits (“Insurers’ profits skyrocket”, AJC, 3-27-2007) consumers continue to pay for elective UM Coverage (UM is not required by law), thinking that if they were a victim in an accident they may need to access that money, and often, they cannot.

Consider this scenario if it were to occur under current law:

You are in a bad car accident—and you are not at fault. Your overall damages are $100,000.
The at-fault driver has $50,000 in liability insurance—which you collect. You had purchased the optional UM Coverage for $50,000 and paid a monthly premium. You may think that you could access that $50,000 to cover the rest of the damages. Under current law you cannot access the UM Coverage that you have wisely paid for every month. You can only access the difference of the coverage if your UM is more than the at-fault driver’s liability coverage. Where does that leave you in this scenario? It leaves you with $50,000 in damages that have gone unpaid for and a policy that you have paid premiums on that you thought would help you out in just such a situation.

“Not many people are aware that they are paying premiums on a policy, every month, that they may not be able to access when they need it most,” said Buck Rogers, an Atlanta attorney. “SB 276 will change that. It will allow consumers to purchase Stacking UM Insurance and get exactly what they pay for.”

Under current law in Georgia, consumers can only choose Non-Stacking UM Coverage or no UM Coverage at all. SB 276, authored by Senator Cecil Staton, provides consumers a third choice—Stacking UM Coverage.

Stacking UM Coverage allows you to stack your coverage on top of the at-fault driver’s to the extent of the damages. In the scenario above, if you had Stacking UM Coverage, you would no longer be $50,000 in debt. SB 276 ensures that Georgians get what they pay for. Twenty-three other states, including our neighbors Alabama, Florida and South Carolina all have similar measures that allow stacking.

“Sadly most people don’t know that they can’t access this coverage until they are in a bad wreck,” said Chan Caudell an attorney in Cornelia. “Often I get calls from people who are injured, missing work, and don’t know how to cover their bills and feed their families. They thought the insurance they had chosen to purchase would help them. Unfortunately, I have to tell them it won’t. SB 276 would change that.”

Not surprisingly, the big insurance companies oppose SB 276, they say that it would increase premiums for UM Coverage. Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine also publicly opposed the bill last year. He said that SB 276 would have minimal benefits (Morris News Service, 4-11-2007). Consumers should not be fooled by this wealthy industry rhetoric. The industry’s own numbers show that SB 276 would increase the premium for $25k in UM Coverage no more than $3.70 a month. And UM Coverage is NOT mandatory under GA law, so no one will be forced to pay higher premiums under SB 276.

“For roughly the cost of a gallon of milk a month, families who choose to purchase Stacking UM will finally get what they have paid for—and when they need it most,” said Rogers. “SB 276 is the wisest piece of public policy legislation for every Georgian that I know of. Passing this bill will allow every insured in Georgia to decide what is right for themselves and for their families, will help doctors get paid and will help to keep families out of debt. It’s just the right thing to do.”

Georgians deserve to get what they have paid for. SB 276 brings fairness back to consumers.

*SB 276 was introduced in the ’07 session. It passed the Senate Insurance and Labor Committee, the Senate Floor and the House Non-Civil Judiciary Committee in ‘07. Time ran out and SB 276 was recommitted to the House Non-Civil Judiciary Committee. On March 3, 2008, SB 276 passed both the subcommittee and the full House Non-Civil Judiciary Committee unanimously. SB 276 now heads to House Rules before heading to the House Floor, and then, assuming passage, the Governor’s Office.

# # #

Drought of Leadership

**Response to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on October 18, 2007.

By: Jamie Bendall
Atlanta Attorney

My patience is drying up like my drinking supply. Commissioner John Oxendine is furiously pumping misinformation from his seemingly still deep reservoir of half-truths regarding the way consumers in Georgia are treated by their insurance companies. It great that he's offended by Progressive's spying on their policy holders in bible study . It would be better if he acted to protect policy holders from these kinds of tactics. Instead he's working right now to prevent policy holders from getting the full benefit of insurance premiums they are already paying for. He's treating insurance companies like they are defenseless, endangered mussels; always seeking to keep them floating on a sea of profits. The people of Georgia are thirsty for Justice and Mr. Oxendine should use his office to see that the benefits of a just insurance industry flow in the right direction. He should support SB 276.

Oxendine Should Support Consumers

By: Joe Watkins
President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association

The case of a couple whose own insurance company, Progressive, sent undercover Private Investigators to spy on them at private Bible Study is heartbreaking to say the least—but, sadly, not all that surprising, given the antics of some insurance companies. In this case, rather than paying out the UM insurance coverage for which the couple dutifully paid premiums every month, Progressive engaged in reprehensible measures in an attempt to save a buck.

What is surprising is Commissioner John Oxendine’s condemnation of Progressive’s conduct. He was quoted on 8-30 in the AJC to say, “Georgia policyholders should expect an open and honest relationship with their insurance company…We have to act promptly to protect the consumer.”
While we applaud Commissioner Oxendine’s stance, in this instance, concerning Progressive’s obviously inappropriate conduct, the Commissioner, unfortunately, is not always so supportive of Georgia’s consumers. Indeed, Commissioner Oxendine is adamantly opposed to a bill to protect consumers who elect to purchase UM coverage.

SB 276, authored by Senator Cecil Staton (R), allows for the stacking of elective UM coverage on top of liability insurance when you are in a serious accident. Consumers think that the premiums they pay on this optional insurance already do that, like they do in 23 other states.
But here in GA you don’t always get what you pay for.
SB 276 would ensure that you do.

Commissioner Oxendine opposes SB 276 and instead sides with the insurance industry. I hope that during this upcoming legislative session he will reflect upon his words “Protect the consumer,” stop protecting the ruthless insurance companies, like Progressive, and stand up for the people of Georgia, as an elected official should.

Welcome to the Wild Wild West

Georgia Trial Lawyers Association

Media Release

(404) 376-3495, Rebecca DeHart

Atlanta—In an effort to appease the business community the NRA threw them a bone—the biggest bone they could find. The new substitute to HB 89 not only includes the SB 43—which allows employees to carry firearms onto their workplace parking lots-- but completely eliminates vicarious liability from Georgia law.

“This change in law dwarfs what so-called Tort Reform, SB 3 did in 2005,” said Geoff Pope, an attorney in Atlanta. “Vicarious liability has been a fundamental aspect of Georgia law since we've been a state. Changing such a basic legal concept requires far more thought, consideration, and deliberation. Doing this as a last-minute add-on to the ‘Take Your Gun to Work” bill is the antithesis of thoughtful, responsible government.”

Vicarious liability, in its simplest form, recognizes the relationship between employer and employee. Employers reap the benefits of their employees—their actions, their time and their labor, not to mention the profits from their work. In exchange, the employer is responsible for their employee and their actions when that employee acts negligently on the job. If the employee harms a third party, that third party has the right to pursue justice through not just the employee—but the employer as well. If a FedEx truck runs over a child, FedEx can be held responsible. If a drunk airline pilot falls asleep and crashes a plane, that airline is also responsible. If a construction crew skimps on safety and builds a deck that later collapses when people stand on it, the construction company is also responsible.

“Eliminating vicarious liability separates the employees from the business or corporation. Employees will be listing in the wind without any protection from the business for whom they made a profit,” said Chan Caudell, an attorney in Cornelia. “Over two hundred years of responsibility and accountability will be thrown in the trashcan.”

Beyond the cases above, eliminating vicarious liability would also eliminate business to business accountability. Business A has millions of dollars in merchandise that needs to be shipped in a truck to its new headquarters. On the road, another corporation’s truck hits Business A. The driver was negligent and clearly at fault. The merchandise is ruined. Business A is out millions of dollars—and Business B, although negligent, would no longer be held responsible.

“Eliminating vicarious liability punishes Georgia’s workers. Workers will sweat through their workdays knowing that their employer legally will hang them out to dry if something were to go amiss,” said Robin Frazer Clark, President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. “Business will no longer be accountable to other businesses. Employers will stop buying insurance coverage for their employees because it will no longer be necessary and the state of Georgia will become the Wild, Wild West.”

# # #

Georgians may pay premiums on insurance coverage they never see

Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
Media Release
(404) 376-3495, Rebecca DeHart

Georgians pay premiums on coverage they may never see
Georgians will actually get what they pay for with the passage of SB 276

Atlanta-- Insurance companies in Georgia collect premiums on Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM) Coverage and may never pay it out—even if you are in a catastrophic accident. In a year that the Insurance Companies are raking in record profits (“Insurers’ profits skyrocket”, AJC, 3-27-2007) consumers continue to pay for elective UM Coverage (UM is not required by law), thinking that if they were a victim in an accident they may need to access that money, and often, they cannot.

Lauren Anderson, a 23-year old in Augusta found out about this the hard way. She was hit by a drunk driver—who had 2 prior DUIs. Her injuries were catastrophic—with damages over $200,000. She lost her spleen, she is permanently disfigured, and continues to suffer with a host of other medical problems caused by the accident.

The driver had a $100,000 policy. Lauren had a $100,000 UM Policy that she had chosen to purchase with her regular coverage. Lauren was able to collect the $100,000 on the driver’s policy, but because of current law, Lauren could not access her UM policy leaving her with tens of thousands of bills unpaid and medical conditions she will be dealing with for the rest of her life.
What Lauren didn’t know was that UM Coverage can only be used if the motorist is completely uninsured or if the coverage they purchased is more than the at-fault driver’s coverage. Had Lauren had a UM policy for $150,000—she would only have been able to use $50,000.

Lauren thought she was electing to purchase UM Insurance—and paying monthly premiums on that insurance—just in case something happened to her. She thought she would get what she was paying for. Now this young woman hit by a drunk driver is incredibly in debt. SB 276 would change this scenario.

Under the proposed law, SB 276 authored by Senator Cecil Staton, you would be able to access your UM Coverage as it would allow you to stack your coverage on top of the at-fault driver’s to the extent of your damages. SB 276 ensures that Georgians will get what they pay for. Twenty-three other states, including our neighbors Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina have similar measures that allow consumers to actually get what they pay for.

“Sadly most people don’t know that they can’t access this coverage until they are in a bad wreck,” said Chan Caudell an attorney in Cornelia. “Often I get calls from people who are injured, missing work, and don’t know how to cover their bills and feed their families. They thought the insurance they had chosen to purchase would help them. Unfortunately, I have to tell them it won’t. SB 276 would change that.”

Not surprisingly, the big insurance companies oppose SB 276, they say that it would increase premiums for UM Coverage. The industry’s own numbers show that SB 276 would increase the premium for $25k in UM Coverage no more than $3.70 a month. And UM coverage is NOT mandatory under GA law, so no one will be forced to pay higher premiums under SB 276.
Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine has just recently come out against the bill—citing different numbers every time. He said that SB 276 would have minimal benefits (Morris News Service, 4-11-2007). To Lauren Anderson those benefits would have been great.

Georgians deserve to get what they have paid for. SB 276 is good for consumers.

# # #