A crash in which one of the drivers was using a phone introduces a fault question on top of an injury question, and when an insurer has already denied the claim, the situation can feel closed off. Georgia law treats both issues with specific rules. This guide explains how phone use affects fault under Georgia’s distracted driving law, how a denied claim fits into the broader process, and what these factors mean for any settlement.
Georgia’s Hands-Free Law
Georgia restricts phone use behind the wheel through the Hands-Free Georgia Act, codified at O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241. The statute requires drivers to exercise due care and prohibits physically holding or supporting a wireless telecommunications device while operating a vehicle. It also bars writing, sending, or reading text-based communications and watching or recording video while driving. Hands-free use through a mounted holder, an earpiece, or a vehicle’s Bluetooth connection is generally permitted. Penalties escalate with repeat convictions, starting at a fine of up to $50 and one point for a first offense.
A violation of this statute is relevant in a civil case because it can support an argument that the phone-using driver was negligent. Under Georgia’s negligence-per-se doctrine, violating a safety statute can establish a breach of the standard of care when the statute was designed to protect against the kind of harm that occurred. Phone use therefore directly affects how fault is assessed.
How Comparative Negligence Applies
Georgia uses a modified comparative negligence rule under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. A person less than 50 percent at fault may recover, but the award is reduced by that person’s own percentage of fault. A person who is 50 percent or more at fault recovers nothing. The statute also allows fault to be apportioned among multiple parties and non-parties.
This rule is central when the injured driver was the one using a phone. If phone use contributed to the crash, an insurer or jury may assign a share of fault to that driver, reducing any recovery. If the phone use was minor or did not contribute to causation, its effect may be limited. The key question under Georgia law is whether the phone use actually contributed to causing the collision, not merely whether a phone was present.
What a Denied Claim Means
A denial is the insurer’s stated position, not a binding determination of the claim’s value. After a denial, an injured person retains the right to pursue the at-fault driver through a civil action. Denials often rest on disputed fault, and in a case involving phone use, the insurer may have denied precisely because it attributes fault to the injured driver’s distraction. That attribution can be contested with evidence, including phone records, witness accounts, and crash reconstruction.
Georgia also regulates insurer conduct. Under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6, an insurer that refuses in bad faith to pay a covered loss within 60 days after a demand can be liable for the loss plus a penalty of up to 50 percent of the loss or $5,000, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney’s fees. A judicial finding of bad faith is required, and not every denial qualifies. The statute exists because a denial is not always justified, which means a denial does not automatically establish that no recovery is available.
The Two-Year Deadline Continues to Run
A denied claim does not pause Georgia’s filing deadline. Under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33, a personal injury action must be brought within two years after the right of action accrues, generally the crash date. Property damage follows a four-year period under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-31. Months of dispute over a denial consume part of the two-year window. If the deadline passes without a lawsuit, the claim is generally barred regardless of the strength of the injuries or the merits of any bad-faith argument.
How Phone Records Function as Evidence
Phone use cuts in both directions in a car-accident claim. If the other driver was using a phone, records and testimony can support an argument that the other driver was negligent, strengthening the injured person’s position. If the injured person was using a phone, the same kind of evidence can be used to assign comparative fault and reduce recovery. Because Georgia courts focus on causation, the timing of phone activity relative to the crash and whether it actually affected driving are what matter, rather than the mere fact that a phone was in use.
What a Settlement Generally Reflects
A settlement is a final, binding resolution, and a signed release generally closes the claim permanently. Settlement valuation in Georgia injury matters generally accounts for medical expenses, future treatment, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, vehicle damage, and non-economic harm such as pain and suffering. Where the injured driver may bear some comparative fault for phone use, the realistic value reflects the anticipated reduction under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. Available insurance, including uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11, also frames the ceiling.
Factors That Bear on the Decision
Several considerations come into play when an offer follows a denial in a case involving phone use. The degree to which phone use actually contributed to the crash affects the comparative fault analysis. The strength of the evidence on both drivers’ conduct affects the realistic recovery. The completeness of medical treatment matters, because settling before reaching maximum medical improvement risks undervaluing future care. The basis for the original denial matters, because a denial built on a disputed fault theory can sometimes be addressed with documentation. And the time remaining on the two-year clock matters, because allowing it to lapse generally ends the claim.
Summary
In Georgia, phone use behind the wheel is restricted by O.C.G.A. § 40-6-241, and a violation can support a negligence argument under the negligence-per-se doctrine, which feeds into the comparative negligence rule of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33. A denied claim is the insurer’s position rather than a final determination, the bad-faith provisions of O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 exist because denials are not always justified, and the two-year deadline under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 continues to run during a dispute. Whether a particular settlement offer is reasonable after a denial depends on how much the phone use actually contributed to causation, the documented injuries, the available coverage, and the time left to file.
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.