BlogLine

Love v. McKnight: Distracted driving isn’t bad faith under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11.

8/6/25

By: Virginia F. Virden

A recent Georgia Supreme Court decision confirms that mere violations of traffic laws do not rise to the level of “bad faith” so as to entitle plaintiffs to attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation under O.C.G.A § 13-6-11.  

In Love v. McKnight, phone records indicated that the at-fault driver in a rear-end collision had been using his phone frequently in the 20 minutes leading up to the crash. The other driver sought attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, alleging that a claim of bad faith was supported by: 1) the driver’s guilty plea in response to a citation for following too closely and 2) the fact that he was distracted by driving while talking on the cell phone.

The legal question was whether traffic violations and cell phone use alone could support a claim for bad faith—specifically, whether the case should go to a jury on the issue of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. The Court ultimately ruled that negligence alone is not enough. Even when a driver violates traffic laws, the law generally requires evidence of intentional misconduct or reckless disregard of known harmful consequences to justify awarding a plaintiff attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Specifically, the Court noted that “under McKnight’s theory that Love was distracted because he was talking on his cell phone, every automobile accident involving cell phone use would present a jury question as to bad faith simply because the driver could have been distracted by a phone call.” The Court rejects the lower court’s ruling that failing to comply with public law could meet the heightened standard of bad faith, instead reiterating the long-held precedent that mere negligence, like being distracted by a phone call while driving, does not create a “bad faith” claim under O.C.G.A § 13-6-11.

Why this matters to insurers
This decision empowers defendants fighting bad faith claims by limiting the ability of claimants to tack on litigation costs in standard rear-end collision claims. While distracted driving can still support punitive damages under certain circumstances, the Court made clear that distracted driving because of one’s cell phone use is not enough to support a bad faith claim for attorney’s fees and reiterated the heightened standard of “intentional misconduct to reckless disregard” as higher than a showing of mere negligence.

Going forward, this ruling should help defendants push back on overreaching claims for litigation expenses in routine auto cases, especially where there’s no compelling evidence of willful or reckless conduct. It’s also a reminder for insurers of commercial motor carriers and trucking companies to continue enforcing mobile device policies consistent with Georgia law.

For further information or clarification, please contact Virginia F. Virden at virginia.virden@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.