Line 51 of the record
How Does Georgia’s Direct Action Statute Allow a Claimant to Sue a Trucking Company’s Insurer Directly Rather Than Only the Insured?
Georgia’s direct action statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 40-1-112(c) and 40-2-140(d)(4), let an injured person join a motor carrier’s insurer in the suit against the carrier. Since Senate Bill 426, for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2024, that is allowed only when a related motor carrier is insolvent or bankrupt, or the driver or carrier cannot be personally served after reasonable diligence. Older claims follow the earlier, broader text.
The rule for claims accruing on or after July 1, 2024
SB 426 rewrote both statutes with the same text. As passed, the joinder is permissible “only when”:
| Condition | Statutory wording |
|---|---|
| Insolvency | "One or more motor carriers related to the cause of action are insolvent or bankrupt" |
| Service failure | "Personal service, as provided in subsection (e) of Code Section 9-11-4, cannot after reasonable diligence be effected" against the driver of the motor carrier's vehicle or against the motor carrier |
When either condition is met:
- The insurer “may be joined in the action as a matter of right, without motion or order of the court, by filing an amended complaint joining the insurance carrier.”
- The amended complaint is served on the insurer under § 9-11-4, and the insurer must answer “within 30 days of service.”
- The amended complaint “shall relate back to the date of filing of the original pleading”, so joining the insurer later does not restart the clock.
Section 4 of the act states that it “shall apply to causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2024.” The Office of Legislative Counsel’s 2024 summary of enacted laws describes the act (Act 616) the same way.
“Accruing”, not “filed”
The cutoff is the date the cause of action arose, not the date the lawsuit was filed. For an injury suffered in the crash itself, that is the crash date. A truck crash on June 30, 2024, sued on in 2026, falls under the old version of the statutes. A crash on July 1, 2024, sued on the next day, falls under the new one. Some published summaries describe the change by filing date; the act does not.
A federal court in Atlanta applied the cutoff that way in Francis v. Suit LLC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2026). The crash happened in May 2024 and the suit was filed in February 2025; the carrier was neither insolvent nor unserved, so the amended statutes would have barred the claim against the insurer. Because the claims “accrued prior to the amendments’ effective date, the prior versions of the statutes apply”, and the court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss.
Crashes before July 1, 2024
Before SB 426, the statutes allowed a claimant to join the motor carrier and its insurer in one action without the insolvency or service conditions. The Court of Appeals noted in Farid v. Gaskell (2022) that § 40-1-112(c) and § 40-2-140(d)(4) authorized “joinder of motor carrier and insurance carrier to cause of action against motor carrier” and were “collectively known as the ‘direct action statutes.'” In that case, arising from a September 2018 tractor-trailer crash on Interstate 75 in Cobb County, the injured father’s suit named the trucking company’s insurer alongside the driver and the carrier.
For a claim that accrued before the cutoff, the question is whether the earlier text applies to it, and that turns on the accrual date, not on SB 426’s conditions.
Building the record for a post-2024 joinder
Because the new statutes tie joinder to facts, those facts need documenting from the start:
- Insolvency or bankruptcy. A bankruptcy filing by the carrier, or another carrier “related to the cause of action”, is a public record. Evidence that a carrier is insolvent without a filing has to be gathered.
- Failed personal service. The statute refers to personal service under § 9-11-4(e) after “reasonable diligence”. A record of each attempt (dates, addresses, the process server’s affidavits) is what shows diligence.
- Identity of the insurer. Joinder needs a named insurer. The carrier’s federal registration and insurance filings, discussed in what a USDOT number and MCS-90 endorsement mean in a Georgia claim, help identify it.
What joinder does not decide
Whether the insurer is in the case or not, the carrier’s liability still has to be proved, and the policy and any federal endorsement still decide what is paid. The carrier’s responsibility for its driver is explained in respondeat superior in Georgia truck accident claims.
An insurer’s exposure beyond its policy limits comes from a different rule. In First Acceptance Insurance Co. of Georgia v. Hughes (2019), the Supreme Court of Georgia quoted its earlier statement that “an insurance company may be liable for the excess judgment entered against its insured based on the insurer’s bad faith or negligent refusal to settle a personal claim within the policy limits”, and held that the duty to settle “arises only when the injured party presents a valid offer to settle within the insured’s policy limits.” That theory belongs to the insured and turns on a settlement offer, not on the direct action statutes. The separate bad-faith penalty statute, O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6, is a claim by a policyholder against its own insurer; see bad faith insurance claims in Georgia.
Questions to answer before deciding whom to sue
- On what date did the cause of action accrue: before July 1, 2024, or on or after it?
- If after, is any motor carrier related to the claim insolvent or in bankruptcy?
- If not, can the driver and the carrier be personally served, and what does the record of attempts show?
- Who is the carrier’s insurer, and what do the carrier’s federal filings show?
The federal rules that govern the carrier’s driver and records are summarized in federal regulations for commercial truck drivers operating in Georgia.
Sources
- Senate Bill 426 (2024), as passed, LC 49 1658, §§ 1, 2, 4; Office of Legislative Counsel, 2024 Summary of General Statutes Enacted (Act 616).
- O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-4, 33-4-6, 40-1-112, 40-2-140.
- Francis v. Suit LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01512-SDG (N.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2026), opinion and order
- Farid v. Gaskell, No. A22A0899 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022)
- First Acceptance Insurance Co. of Georgia v. Hughes, 305 Ga. 489 (2019)
This page describes Georgia law as of October 2026 for general information. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.