Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s political organization took to social media to tout his success in limiting lawsuits in a way Georgians could understand. “Thank you” its ad proclaimed, with the words blocked in the yellow-and-black all-caps style of Waffle House’s iconic sign.

Kemp, who signed two new laws overhauling Georgia’s litigation system on Monday, says the measures that business groups spent years pushing for will lower insurance costs, help businesses and improve the state’s economy. Among other things, the laws limit when businesses and property owners can be held liable for negligence and add regulations to trials aimed at lowering jury awards.

Whether the measures will actually shield businesses and doctors from frivolous lawsuits and rising insurance rates — and whether they need shielding — was the subject of tense debate this legislative session. Some experts question Kemp’s broader promise of lower insurance rates for everyone, and opponents of the new limits say some wronged Georgians will no longer get their day in court.

Flanked by some business executives, legislators and a few Home Depot workers in the Capitol, Kemp insisted Monday that the legislation will still protect people’s right to bring claims and “be made whole.”

“The comprehensive, common sense measures we proposed just a few months ago…ensured our legal environment put Georgia on equal footing with neighboring states’ that compete with us for jobs and investment,” Kemp said at a bill-signing ceremony.

Kemp’s political future

Millions of dollars were spent lobbying on both sides of the issue, which passed after Kemp used his considerable sway with the Republican-led Legislature. The win could help round out Kemp’s political resume and earn extra support from business groups as he prepares for a potential U.S. Senate or presidential run.

“If you’re talking about a national race, he needs to be able to point to a record of delivery on conservative principles, and this is a really, really big, feather in his cap,” said Republican political strategist Brian Robinson.

The overhaul is still more complicated for voters to understand than Kemp’s 2019 signature abortion bill or recent tax cuts. Kemp recognized this conundrum from the start, evoking Waffle House, an establishment beloved in Georgia, in his early speeches.

Too far or just right?

Businesses of all sizes, property owners, doctors and trucking companies have complained they’re facing lawsuits and high insurance rates that hurt their bottom line.

Some Democrats and trial lawyers who opposed the legislation said they would have been open to changes to Georgia’s laws governing lawsuits against business and property owners for failing to provide adequate security that resulted in someone’s injury or suffering. But they said one of the new laws will make it too hard to prove that property owners knew of a security risk.

“For some lawyers, it means that they’re pretty much out of business because of the extraordinary restrictions on what you can explain to the jury and how you can explain bodily injury,” trial lawyer and political analyst Madeline Summerville said.

Some of the new laws’ supporters won’t be bothered if trial lawyers lose clients. They say the laws will bring needed balance to the state’s legal system, arguing that trial lawyers exploit people’s injuries and lure them into suing, then use unfair practices in court to secure large payouts. Most Democratic lawmakers rejected that claim.

“We heard hours of heartbreaking testimony from victims who begged the legislature to reject this dangerous legislation, but Georgia Republicans did not care,” Atlanta Democratic state Rep. Stacey Evans, who is a lawyer, said in a statement. “Instead, they cruelly dismissed these victims and were all too happy to provide a free pass for large corporations to escape accountability for their negligence.”

Insurance battles

Supporters also said large payouts scare businesses and insurers away and cause rising rates. Opponents of the new law note verdicts in the millions of dollars are rare, and those over $10 million represent less than 1% of outcomes. Insurance rates are also driven by many factors, and some experts found there isn’t clear evidence from other states linking litigation systems and insurance rates.

Skeptics felt even more empowered when a Tampa Bay Times investigation uncovered a report that found insurance companies in Florida were hiding profits while claiming they were losing money. Losses by homeowners’ insurers were a key argument in Republican-led Florida’s successful push to tighten its litigation rules.

Opponents of Florida’s overhaul say insurance rates haven’t dropped, while supporters say they’ve stabilized and that it will take time for people to see further improvements.

The new Georgia legislation will also make structural changes to trials and add restrictions and requirements for how lawyers can make their cases. In addition, one of the bills will regulate third-party litigation funders.

“We knew that accessible, measured lawsuit reform was needed to restore stability to our insurance markets and balance to our courtrooms,” said Republican House Speaker Jon Burns.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Two lawsuits filed in Los Angeles allege major home insurance companies have colluded to limit coverage in California communities at high risk for wildfires and force homeowners onto the state’s last-resort insurance plan that offers basic coverage and high premiums.

Insurers, including State Farm and 24 other companies that hold 75% of California’s home insurance market, were part of an “illegal scheme” in violation of California’s antitrust and unfair competition laws, according to one of the lawsuits, filed last week.

The lawsuit said the companies worked together in 2023 to “suddenly and simultaneously” drop coverage or halt writing new policies in fire-prone areas, including in neighborhoods like Pacific Palisades and Altadena that were leveled in the January wildfires that destroyed nearly 17,000 structures and killed at least 30 people. That has forced hundreds of homeowners onto the FAIR Plan that offers limited coverage capping at $3 million, leaving them underinsured and now struggling to rebuild after the fires, says the lawsuit filed by a group of homeowners who lost their houses in the LA fires.

The other lawsuit includes all policyholders who obtained the FAIR Plan after January 2023, when the conspiracy allegedly began, the suit says.

“Insurance is a product that homeowners hope never to need, but rely on for peace of mind in normal times and for critical help rebuilding after a catastrophe,” Michael J. Bidart, who represents the homeowners, said in a statement. “The complaints allege that, by colluding to push plaintiffs and so many like them to the FAIR Plan, the defendants have reaped the benefits of high premiums while depriving homeowners of coverage that they were ready, willing, and able to purchase to ensure that they could recover after a disaster like January’s wildfires.”

The lawsuits come as California is struggling with an ongoing insurance crisis, where companies are boosting rates, limiting coverage or pulling out completely from regions susceptible to wildfires and other natural disasters. In 2023, several major insurance companies either paused or restricted new business in the state, saying they can’t truly price the risk on properties as wildfires become more common and destructive due to climate change.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the largest national trade association representing home, auto and business insurers, said it complies with the state’s antitrust laws and monitors its members to ensure they do the same.

“These suits defy logic, advance meritless claims, and we are going to focus on solving the challenges in the insurance market in California,” said Stef Zielezienski, the group’s chief legal officer.

The state Department of Insurance said it is not involved in the suits but said its focus is on protecting consumers.

“Californians deserve a system that works — one where decisions are made openly, rates reflect real risk, and no one is left without options,” department spokesperson Gabriel Sanchez said in a statement.

State Farm, the largest home insurer in California with roughly a million policies, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The FAIR Plan is an insurance pool that all the major private insurers pay into. The plan issues policies to people who can’t get private insurance because their properties are deemed too risky to insure. The plan, with high premiums and basic coverage, is designed as a temporary option until homeowners can find permanent coverage, but more Californians are relying on it than ever. There were more than 555,000 home policies on the FAIR Plan as of March, more than double the number in 2020.

The complaints also allege that insurers were pushing policyholders onto the FAIR Plan because companies wouldn’t have to shoulder all financial responsibility to sustain the plan. When the state’s top insurance regulator in February ordered insurers to provide $1 billion to the FAIR Plan to help it pay out claims related to the LA wildfires, he allowed for half of the cost to be recouped from policyholders statewide. Another lawsuit was filed last week to block the cost-shifting regulation.

California has been in the process of implementing various new regulations to give insurers more latitude to raise premiums in exchange for issuing more policies in high-risk areas. That includes regulations allowing insurers to consider climate change when setting their prices and allowing them to pass on the costs of reinsurance to California consumers.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Source link

Novo Nordisk A/S slumped after a pill from rival Eli Lilly & Co. helped patients shed weight and control blood sugar about as well as its injected blockbuster Ozempic. 

The stock dropped as much as 9.8% to 380 kroner early in Copenhagen, the first trading day since the Thursday announcement that buoyed Lilly.

The triumph of Ozempic, Wegovy and related drugs including Lilly’s Zepbound has set off a push toward the next frontier: a pill that’s easier to take and less expensive to make. The Lilly study puts pressure on Novo, whose market value has dropped by a third since the start of the year.

The potential competition prompted Naresh Chouhan, an analyst at Intron Health, to cut his sales forecast for Novo in 2030 by 20% and slash his price target for the shares.

The Lilly data “looks like it is set to transform the GLP-1 space and raise the bar for both oral and injectable therapies” as Novo’s Wegovy already struggles to compete with Zepbound, Chouhan wrote. 

The Danish drugmaker said it has filed with US regulators for approval of a high-dose pill with the same active ingredient as Ozempic for weight loss. 

Obesity shots made by Novo and Lilly have generated billions of dollars in sales. While rivals including Pfizer Inc. have suffered setbacks, analysts said success in the pill category is critical to creating the $130 billion market they predict by the end of the decade. 

Novo has been selling a lower dose pill with semaglutide, the key ingredient in Ozempic and its sister drug Wegovy, since 2019 under the brand name Rybelsus. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Source link