After a jury returns a verdict against a defendant, the question of how the resulting judgment will actually be paid often turns on insurance. Georgia law generally separates the lawsuit against the person or company at fault from any later effort to collect from an insurer. This guide explains the general rule against direct actions in Georgia, the limited exceptions, and what mechanisms exist to reach an insurer after a verdict has already been entered.
The general rule against direct actions
Georgia follows the traditional rule that an injured person ordinarily cannot sue the wrongdoer’s liability insurer directly. The insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer, and the injured party is not a party to that contract. A plaintiff generally must first sue and obtain a judgment against the responsible party. Naming a liability insurer as a defendant in the original tort suit is normally not permitted, and mentioning insurance to a jury is generally disfavored because it can improperly influence the verdict.
Because of this rule, an insurer is usually not a direct defendant in a standard Georgia personal injury or truck accident case. The case proceeds against the driver and any other responsible parties, and the insurer’s role is to defend its insured and, if coverage applies, to pay a covered judgment up to policy limits.
Joinder during the case: the motor carrier exception
Georgia recognizes a notable statutory exception for commercial motor carriers. Provisions in the Georgia Motor Carrier Act, found in Title 40, have allowed an injured person to join a motor carrier’s liability insurer in the same action as the carrier. The historical purpose of this direct action provision was to protect the public by ensuring that injured persons could recover compensation efficiently and to encourage insurers to resolve legitimate claims.
This exception, however, was significantly narrowed by legislation. Effective July 1, 2024, Georgia amended its motor carrier direct action statutes so that a direct action against a motor carrier’s insurer is permitted only in limited circumstances: when a motor carrier involved is insolvent or bankrupt, or when personal service cannot be obtained against the driver or motor carrier after reasonable diligence. Outside those circumstances, direct joinder of the insurer is no longer available even in motor carrier cases. The key point is that this exception, where it applies, concerns joinder during the lawsuit, not the addition of an insurer after a verdict.
Adding an insurer after the verdict
Joining a liability insurer as a new direct defendant after a verdict has already been entered is generally not how Georgia practice works. A verdict resolves the claims that were tried among the parties who were before the court. Adding an entirely new defendant to a case that has already gone to verdict, and then obtaining a judgment against that new party on the existing verdict, runs against basic principles of due process and the structure of civil litigation. An insurer that was not a party did not have its day in court on the questions that would determine its liability.
Instead of joining the insurer as a defendant after the fact, Georgia law provides separate post-judgment mechanisms for reaching insurance proceeds. These are distinct procedures, not a re-opening of the underlying suit.
Post-judgment garnishment
One established mechanism is garnishment. After a plaintiff obtains a judgment, the plaintiff may pursue garnishment against parties who owe money to the judgment debtor. Garnishment is governed by Georgia’s garnishment statutes in Title 18. Through a garnishment proceeding, a judgment creditor can reach obligations owed to the judgment debtor, and a liability insurer that owes coverage for the judgment can become a garnishee. A garnishment action is a separate proceeding, not the addition of the insurer as a defendant in the original tort case, and the insurer as garnishee has its own procedural rights, including the right to answer and to contest whether it owes anything.
Suits to enforce coverage and bad faith claims
A judgment creditor or an insured may also bring a separate action to establish that the insurer owes coverage for the judgment, particularly where the insurer disputes coverage. Georgia also recognizes claims connected to an insurer’s handling of a claim. O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 addresses an insurer’s liability for damages and attorney’s fees when it acts in bad faith in failing to pay a covered claim, subject to the statute’s notice and timing requirements. Where an insurer refused a reasonable opportunity to settle within policy limits and a verdict later exceeds those limits, the insured may have a claim against the insurer for the excess, and that claim can sometimes be assigned. These are all separate causes of action with their own elements; they are not accomplished by simply naming the insurer as a defendant in the case that already went to verdict.
Uninsured and underinsured motorist insurers
The position of a plaintiff’s own uninsured or underinsured motorist insurer is different from that of a liability insurer for the at-fault party. Georgia procedure allows an injured person’s own UM or UIM carrier to be served and to participate in the litigation in defined ways, and that carrier’s involvement is structured by the uninsured motorist statutes. This is a distinct framework from the general rule against direct actions against a defendant’s liability insurer.
The honest picture
In Georgia, the general rule is that a liability insurer is not a direct defendant in the tort case at all, and joining an insurer as a new direct defendant after a verdict has been entered is not the recognized procedure. The motor carrier direct action exception concerns joinder during the lawsuit and, as of July 1, 2024, is limited to narrow circumstances. After a verdict, the established routes to insurance proceeds are separate proceedings: post-judgment garnishment under Title 18, a separate action to enforce coverage, and claims arising from an insurer’s bad faith or failure to settle, including under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6. Whether and how an insurer can be reached after a verdict depends on the policy, the type of insurance involved, and the specific facts, and these post-judgment mechanisms operate independently of the case that produced the verdict.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.