Georgia law gives courts several tools to address litigation conduct that crosses the line from vigorous advocacy into the frivolous. These tools apply to defendants as well as plaintiffs, and they apply to trucking companies and their insurers the same way they apply to any other party. A defense is not frivolous simply because it loses. Georgia courts draw the line at positions that no reasonable lawyer could believe a court would accept, or that are raised for delay or harassment rather than for genuine adjudication.
The main sanctions statute: O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14
The most frequently used provision is O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14, which authorizes courts to assess attorney’s fees and litigation expenses against a party, that party’s attorney, or both. The statute has two parts that work differently.
Subsection (a) is mandatory. It directs that fees and expenses “shall be awarded” against a party who asserts a claim, defense, or other position with respect to which there existed “such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it could not be reasonably believed that a court would accept” the position. This is a demanding standard. A defense survives this test if any justiciable issue supports it, even a weak one.
Subsection (b) is discretionary. It allows a court, on a party’s motion or on its own, to assess fees if it finds that an attorney or party “brought or defended an action, or any part thereof, that lacked substantial justification,” or interposed it for delay or harassment, or “unnecessarily expanded the proceeding by other improper conduct, including, but not limited to, abuses of discovery procedures.” The statute defines “lacked substantial justification” as substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious.
Two limits are built into the statute. No party or attorney may be sanctioned for a position asserted in a good faith attempt to establish a new theory of law. And any award is capped at amounts reasonable and necessary for asserting or defending a party’s rights. A motion under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 may be filed at any time during the action but no later than 45 days after final disposition of the case. The statute does not apply to magistrate court proceedings.
How this applies to trucking defenses
Trucking litigation often involves a commercial carrier, a driver, an insurer, and sometimes a broker or shipper, each with separate counsel. A defense that is merely aggressive is not sanctionable. For example, contesting causation, disputing the extent of injuries, or asserting comparative fault are ordinary defenses even when the evidence against them is substantial. Sanctions become a realistic question when a defense has no factual or legal grounding at all, or when discovery conduct unnecessarily multiplies the proceedings, such as repeatedly refusing to produce records the carrier is plainly required to keep, or asserting privilege over plainly non-privileged material to delay disclosure.
Georgia appellate courts review subsection (a) awards to confirm the absence of any justiciable issue, and they review subsection (b) awards for abuse of discretion. A trial court that awards fees must enter findings tying the award to the specific sanctionable conduct, and the award must cover only fees caused by that conduct rather than the entire litigation.
Other sanction mechanisms
O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 is not the only avenue. Georgia recognizes a separate tort of abusive litigation under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-80 and following. That cause of action allows a person to recover from someone who takes an active part in initiating, continuing, or procuring civil proceedings, a claim, a defense, or other position “with malice” and “without substantial justification.” The statute defines “without substantial justification” as frivolous, groundless in fact or law, or vexatious, and it defines malice to include using process for a purpose other than proper adjudication. An abusive litigation claim is generally pursued as a separate action after the underlying case ends, and it carries its own notice and timing requirements.
The Georgia Civil Practice Act also supplies sanction power. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37 authorizes a range of sanctions for discovery abuse, from ordering disputed facts established, to striking pleadings, to entering default or dismissal in extreme cases. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1 addresses certain claims against constitutional rights of petition and speech. And O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68 governs offers of settlement and provides for an award of fees in some circumstances when a rejected offer is not beaten at trial. Courts also retain inherent authority to manage proceedings and address conduct that obstructs the orderly administration of justice.
What courts weigh
In deciding whether a trucking company’s defense or litigation conduct warrants sanctions, Georgia courts focus on objective factors. They look at whether any reasonable basis in law or fact supported the position when it was asserted, whether the position was abandoned promptly once it became clear it lacked support, and whether the conduct was aimed at delay or harassment. The fact that a carrier and its insurer have substantial resources does not, by itself, make a defense frivolous. Conversely, a well-funded defendant gets no special protection. The standard is the same for every litigant.
Sanctions under these provisions are the exception rather than the routine result of a losing defense. Georgia courts generally reserve them for conduct that genuinely lacks justification, and they require a clear record connecting the award to that conduct. The statutes function less as a penalty for losing than as a check on positions and tactics that serve no legitimate adjudicative purpose.
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.