A passenger denial letter from an insurer raises a different set of questions than a courtroom apportionment dispute. Georgia’s seat belt statute, the comparative fault statute, and the rules governing insurance claim handling each contribute a distinct piece of the picture. The April 2025 enactment of Senate Bill 68 changes how belt non-use can be discussed in any subsequent litigation, but it does not by itself answer the question of what an insurer was allowed to do with a passenger claim under the original policy.
The Seat Belt Statute Today
O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 requires occupants of designated passenger vehicles to use available safety belts. Until April 21, 2025, the statute contained a longstanding gag rule that barred the use of belt non-use as evidence of negligence or causation, as a basis for diminished damages, or as a reason to cancel coverage or raise premiums. Senate Bill 68, signed by Governor Brian Kemp on that date, repealed the civil-evidence portion of the gag rule. Belt non-use is now admissible to support arguments about negligence, comparative negligence, causation, assumption of risk, and apportionment of fault under the evidence rules. The amended statute kept the bar on canceling coverage or raising premiums because of belt non-use.
For a non-driving occupant, the practical consequence is that belt status is no longer categorically off-limits in court, but it is also not a permitted reason to drop coverage or raise rates.
What a Denied Insurance Claim Means
Insurance claim denials in Georgia generally come in one of several forms. A liability carrier may deny by arguing that its insured driver was not at fault. A first-party med-pay or PIP-equivalent carrier may deny by arguing the claim falls outside the coverage definitions. An uninsured or underinsured motorist carrier may deny by arguing that the policy conditions were not met or that the other driver’s coverage was sufficient. The denial letter itself states the carrier’s reasoning, and Georgia law requires liability and UM insurers to act in good faith.
A denial that cites belt non-use as the sole reason to drop coverage or raise premiums runs into the protection still embedded in O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 after SB 68. The statute specifically preserves the rule that belt non-use cannot be the ground for cancellation or premium increase. A denial that points to other reasons, such as a coverage exclusion or a dispute about fault, raises different issues.
The Bad-Faith Framework Under Georgia Law
Two main bad-faith provisions apply to motor vehicle insurance. O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 governs first-party liability insurance claims and allows recovery of bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when an insurer refuses in bad faith to pay a covered loss within sixty days of demand. O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11 applies the same general framework to uninsured motorist coverage and allows penalties of up to 25 percent of the recovery or $25,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees in cases of bad-faith refusal.
A passenger who was denied a claim and whose denial appears to be inconsistent with the actual policy terms can examine whether the denial fits within the bad-faith standard. The fact that the claimant was not driving generally simplifies the at-fault inquiry, because driver-conduct defenses such as speeding or distracted-driving violations do not attach to a passenger.
Comparative Fault Implications
If the denied claim becomes a lawsuit, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 governs apportionment of fault. Under that statute, the trier of fact reduces damages by the plaintiff’s share of fault and denies recovery entirely when the plaintiff is 50 percent or more at fault. For passengers, fault for causing the crash itself is uncommon, since passengers rarely affect the operation of the vehicle. Apportionment in passenger cases typically centers on injury-mitigation issues, including the belt question after SB 68.
The amended O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 makes belt non-use admissible to support that apportionment argument, but the trial court still has discretion under the evidence rules to limit or exclude the evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
How a Denial Interacts with Later Litigation
A denied insurance claim does not prevent the claimant from filing suit against the at-fault driver or, in appropriate cases, against the UM carrier. The insurance denial is a contractual or extracontractual event between the policyholder and the carrier, while the tort claim is a separate matter between the injured person and the responsible driver.
In Georgia practice, the post-denial sequence often involves a formal demand for payment that triggers the sixty-day window under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 or § 33-7-11, followed by litigation that includes both the tort claim and any related bad-faith allegation. The belt question, post-SB 68, becomes a litigation issue rather than a coverage issue.
Available Coverages for a Passenger
Coverages a passenger may draw upon include the at-fault driver’s liability coverage, the host vehicle’s medical payments coverage, the passenger’s own auto policy uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11, and the passenger’s health insurance. Georgia mandates that auto insurers offer UM coverage in amounts at least equal to liability limits unless the insured rejects it in writing. The minimum financial responsibility limits are set at 25/50/25, which means $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury and $25,000 for property damage. SB 68 did not alter these coverage rules.
Filing Deadlines
The general two-year statute of limitations in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 governs personal-injury claims arising from a crash. Property damage claims have a four-year period under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-31. Bad-faith claims tied to insurance policies typically follow contract limitations or the underlying tort period, depending on the theory. Government claims involve shorter notice requirements under O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26 and § 36-33-5. Tolling provisions under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-90 apply for minors and persons under legal disability.
The Practical Picture
A passenger in Georgia who was not belted, was not driving, and received an insurance denial faces three separate inquiries: whether the denial was consistent with the policy, whether the denial was made in good faith under the relevant insurance statutes, and how the belt question will play out under the amended O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 if the matter proceeds to litigation. After SB 68, the belt evidence is no longer categorically excluded, but the statute still prevents the carrier from using belt non-use to cancel coverage or raise premiums. The interaction of the denial, the bad-faith framework, and the apportionment regime will turn on the specific facts and on what the policy and the police report say happened.
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.