Ep.1: Tort & Retort w/guest Rep. Marvin Lim

summary

In this episode of Georgia House Rules, Representative Karen Lupton and Representative Marvin Lim discuss the complexities of tort reform in Georgia. They explore the definition of torts, the implications of Governor Kemp's tort reform agenda, and how these changes could impact everyday Georgians. The conversation delves into the relationship between tort reform and rising insurance premiums, public safety concerns, and real-life examples of tort cases, including the infamous O.J. Simpson civil trial. The episode emphasizes the need for a broader approach to public safety and insurance issues beyond just tort reform.

takeaways

• Torts are civil wrongs that can lead to lawsuits.
• Governor Kemp prioritizes tort reform in Georgia.
• Tort reform may favor larger businesses over individuals.
• Insurance premiums are rising, but the causes are complex.
• Public safety measures are crucial in preventing harm.
• Real-life examples illustrate the impact of tort cases.
• Tort reform discussions often overlook systemic issues.
• Caps on damages may not lower insurance costs.
• Pain and suffering damages are subjective and personal.
• Judges play a critical role in moderating jury awards.

Thank you for listening!

Transcript

Karen Lupton (00:00)
Hello there and welcome to Georgia House Rules, a podcast brought to you by the House Democratic Caucus in the Georgia General Assembly. What that means is the Georgia General Assembly is split into House and Senate. Every Democratic member of the House in the Georgia General Assembly belongs to the House Caucus, what's called the House Caucus.

This podcast is meant to bring our message directly to you without headlines, without fuss, without a lot of barriers. My name is Representative Karen Lupton and today's episode is Tort and Retort. I have with me Representative Marvin Lim, a good friend of mine and an attorney who is also a Democrat in the state house. Say hey Marvin.

Marvin Lim (00:59)
Hi everyone. Hi Karen.

Karen Lupton (01:02)
Hi Marvin! Thank you so much for being on the show today so that we can have a little chat about just what tort and tort reform is all about in Georgia. Let me ask you first, Marvin, what is a tort and why should it matter to the people of Georgia?

Marvin Lim (01:24)
May I retort that by asking you first, what is your definition of a tort?

Karen Lupton (01:31)
Okay, my definition of a tort, and I'm just a regular old person, is it's a type of lawsuit. Is that correct?

Marvin Lim (01:40)
It is.

Karen Lupton (01:41)
It's a type of lawsuit that does not involve a crime. I mean, it involves a crime, but it's not a criminal action. Is that good to say?

Marvin Lim (01:52)
That is correct. And you know, accepting lawyers, more than about 99 % of the people I polled, you know this because we've talked about it online, offline, but all session I have been polling people, certainly other legislators, both senators and House members, House representatives, but also people in the Capitol. I've been asking them, what is a tort or what do you think a tort is? And most lawyers,

Excuse me, most non-lawyers and some lawyers are not able to define it. My definition of it is, I think, the classical definition, which very much takes from what you've said. is a tort literally means a wrongdoing, but it is not a criminal wrongdoing that results in prison or misdemeanor or felony designation. And on the flip side of it, it is not a contractual wrong. An example of a tort.

that I've been telling people about is remember for some people, the O.J. Simpson trial, there was the criminal part of the prosecution that very famously made it on TV, but there was the part that didn't make it on TV, which was the wrongful death suit. There was a wrongdoing that resulted in the death of someone, and they pursued that through a civil claim, which was a tort.

Karen Lupton (03:15)
So, the O.J. Simpson civil trial was a tort.

Marvin Lim (03:20)
Correct.

Karen Lupton (03:23)
wow. Okay. I think that really puts it on people's radar in a way that they can understand, you know, again, for a certain age. But I want to emphasize that we are sitting here working in the Georgia General Assembly in a time and in a legislative session where Georgia's governor, Brian Kemp, has literally said that tort reform is his number one priority.

and people under the gold dome who are trying to do this work, you're telling me Marvin, they don't even know what it is.

Marvin Lim (03:59)
Well, I try to be fair. They can't define the word. I think it would be for, let's say, the average, certainly non-lawyer Georgian, I think it would be unfair to have them expect them to know what that is. I do think it's very fair and should be expected for people certainly to know what they're legislating. And while they don't have to have the perfect definition, I do think it says a little something about us.

Karen Lupton (04:01)
Hahaha!

Mmm.

Marvin Lim (04:29)
that your definition, which was a great definition, so a lot of credit to you, that people don't know exactly what, not only what a tort is, but then breaking down what Governor Kemp's tort proposals are, it has been, in my experience, very difficult for people to, again, accepting the lawyers, and there are a few of us here, to really define what it is that is going on.

Karen Lupton (04:35)
Thanks.

Hmm. There are.

Marvin Lim (04:59)
And I will say very quickly too, I don't think that should always be the expectation for us to perfectly define in legalese what these are. But what we should be able to do as members of the General Assembly is to be able to tell people with evidence what it is that we're trying to do will actually lead to. And I think on that front, are in my mind not as succeeding as much as we could be and should be.

Karen Lupton (05:27)
Hmm.

Yeah. One of our, leader in the Georgia House Democratic Caucus, chair, Tanya Miller, Representative Tanya Miller, said in earlier this year that basically tort reform puts big companies first and regular Georgians last. I don't know if you agree with that definition.

It definitely puts, it definitely favors larger businesses and puts regular people who are harmed by those businesses at the bottom of the pile. Would you agree with that assessment?

Marvin Lim (06:09)
I would agree with that assessment. in order for me as a lawyer, and by the way, I do civil work, both plaintiff and defense side work. I think it's important for us to, again, really define what we're talking about. So I'm going to read very quickly from a Governor campus press release as to what this legislation is attempting to address, and then talk about why that is favoring larger businesses in my opinion.

Karen Lupton (06:35)
please,

I'm ready to hear it.

Marvin Lim (06:36)
Absolutely.

So the main parts of the legislation are to reevaluate the standard for negligent security liability, otherwise known as premises liability, truthful calculation of medical damages in personal injury cases, that is phantom damages, eliminates the ability to arbitrarily anchor pain and suffering damages to a jury, anchoring bifurcated trials, admissible seatbelt evidence, eliminating double recovery of attorney's fees.

eliminating plaintiff dismissal during trial, motion dismissed, timing charges, etc. And again, we don't absolutely or the general public, I don't think should be absolutely expected to be tested on this and get 100%. But that wasn't your question either. Your question was, do you do I believe that this favors larger businesses? So there's a couple of reasons I read all that. One is we are touting ourselves as the number one place to do business.

Karen Lupton (07:19)
No!

Marvin Lim (07:35)
And I would venture to guess, well, actually I have some evidence behind this, but imperfect, but I would venture to guess that most businesses of most sizes, and again, most businesses in Georgia, like in America are small businesses, have never faced any suit and certainly any suit that involved any one of these six or seven issues that I read off. Would you share that intuition, Karen, Representative Lupton?

Karen Lupton (07:58)
Mmm.

I don't think this necessarily has much to do with the regular mom and pop shop.

Marvin Lim (08:11)
Absolutely.

Now you can imagine that larger businesses, perhaps, know, Fortune 500 companies in Georgia have, have, you know, faced some of these suits. I don't think that's under any sort of controversy, but again, the question goes to how will this, all this legalese actually impact Georgians, small businesses, large businesses? And ultimately why I think it is

Karen Lupton (08:32)
Right.

Marvin Lim (08:36)
mostly impacting or for the benefit really of large businesses is a like what I said most small businesses are not and have never we will never face these types of civil claims but also I very much understand that whatever size of business the the argument has been made that yes we are small but all of this that is impacting other people is is raising our insurance premiums.

So I very much want to recognize that.

Karen Lupton (09:06)
And what is it that's raising

those insurance premiums? What is it that is happening that is supposedly raising these insurance premiums?

Marvin Lim (09:15)
Absolutely. You're leading to, by the way, we do not practice this folks, but that is exactly the question to ask because in a lot of people's minds, including a lot of businesses of most size, we see that insurance premiums are rising. Again, I think we all agree that that is the case. I myself pay business insurance and I've seen it go higher. So I have a lot of empathy for that and factually.

my one experience is matching those of the other. But your question is the key question because some people again are arguing that it is these cases, most of which, most of these businesses will never be involved in. But the way I've been thinking about it is, okay, that may be true, but let's think about other possibilities. Being very lawyerly with the Socratic method a little bit. What are the other?

Karen Lupton (09:46)
Hmm.

You're nothing if not Socratic, Marvin.

Marvin Lim (10:12)
I hated Socratic method in law school, we don't need to get into that. I would say that let's at least explore what is leading to higher insurance premiums for businesses of any size. A lot of discussion in the last year, rightfully so, has been around Hurricane Helene. Now, Hurricane Helene certainly calls for tort reform far preceded Hurricane Helene.

But we know that events like Hurricane Helene, these weather emergencies, tragedies raise people's insurance premiums. We know that we've been talking a lot about that. What does tort reform do for that? What else might be causing these higher premiums? The things that I've been talking about is, okay, a lot has been made around premises liability, you know, what happens on business.

Karen Lupton (10:55)
Hmm.

Marvin Lim (11:10)
properties and the harm to others. But that, I think, can be part of a larger conversation around public safety. Another conversation that we've been having, whether it's been around gun violence, wherever you fall on that, or shootings, or gangs, conversations that are very much at the tip of our tongues in front of mind here, we are making a lot, rightfully so, about those.

Is that not leading to higher insurance premiums? So the exercise in my mind is, is tort reform what we need to lower the insurance premiums for all businesses? Or is it all of these other things that we need to address? Now they're not mutually exclusive. You could address both, but so much of the priority has been on tort reform. And I would argue not so much on the systematic changes we need to make around.

Karen Lupton (11:41)
Hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Hmm.

Marvin Lim (12:06)
emergency preparedness, whether you believe in climate change or not, being prepared for emergencies, fortifying our infrastructure so that there are not catastrophic costs when they come, actually addressing public safety so that it doesn't fall to businesses, whether they have insurance or not, or individuals certainly who are innocent, but actually creates an infrastructure we're preventing these guns and getting in the wrong hands and creating these problems in the first place. What can we be doing as a state that

Karen Lupton (12:17)
Mm-hmm.

Mm.

Mmm.

Marvin Lim (12:36)
is not that to me is our role and not tipping the balance of the judicial system one way or the other.

Karen Lupton (12:38)
Mm-hmm.

Yeah, yeah, this is a great example. We were in my office a little while ago. And yes, I'm in my office at the Georgia General Assembly. We're in an office building and I believe Marvin's right next door to me, believe it or not. But we were in my office, we were listening to a colleague talk about a case that he's an attorney and he's a representative in the state house. And he was saying that a client of his was dropping

a gentleman off at an apartment complex in Atlanta. She pulled in, had never been there before, and was shot by gang violence and was hit in the arm. She wasn't fatally shot. She was hit in the arm on the premises of this apartment complex. Now it turns out the apartment complex had known that there were problems with gangs and with gang violence. And our colleague had the email trail.

to show that this apartment complex knew that there was danger on their premises. So this young woman that he was representing who got shot in the arm harmed on the premises of this apartment complex is trying to sue the apartment complex for damages because they did not properly attend to their safety on their premises. That's a good example of this premises liability.

when we're talking about premises liability, is it not?

Marvin Lim (14:12)
That is a great example. And to me, that is one of the classic examples because in my time in the House, I remember a bill where we attempted, it was not ultimately passed and had a lot of controversy, but it was a bill that would have required apartments to report on crimes.

that were happening within their properties. You might fall one way or the other on the bill, but the fact is during that conversation, nobody is debating that this is happening. So the question then to me becomes, well, what do we actually do about it? There's providing the information. There is tinkering with the judicial system. And some of that is justified. We did pass and sign into law, governor kept signing into law the Safe at Home Act last year that had bipartisan support.

that would have created higher standards for safety in multifamily rentals and other rentals. Now that is still requiring the tenant to use the judicial system, which a lot of people can't afford, but it was a big step forward in the right direction. But again, I go to what can we do to prevent this, like before it gets to a problem in the judicial system.

Karen Lupton (15:19)
Can't afford, yeah.

Mm-hmm.

Marvin Lim (15:31)
And

the example that you just stated is, someone knew about this. Someone could have prevented this. And in many ways, sometimes we call it the least cost avoider in legalese, but can we hold people, not specific to apartments, but any premises to some standard to say, hey, if you know about something, you should be able to implement measures to provide safety.

Karen Lupton (15:35)
Mm-hmm.

threat.

Marvin Lim (16:00)
That is one of the classic contexts that is very much at issue with the tort reform package. And again, I would submit that we need to think about, actually, how are we preventing this in a way that will actually lead to lower costs and safety overall, not just, again, favoring either the person who was harmed in that kind of context or example or the business.

So I think that's why in so many ways, it's not to say that tort reform isn't important. There are parts of it that I think are important, but I think it is missing the bigger picture of what is actually causing these problems of emergencies, of public safety, and ultimately of harm both to businesses and to regular individuals.

Karen Lupton (16:38)
Hmm.

Right. And part of the tort reform that, part of the reform that Governor Kemp wants to initiate would limit the amount of money that a, would put caps on the amount of money that a jury could award to someone like this woman who was shot, that saying, no, we're going to keep the award that we, that a jury can give to this woman lower.

so that businesses are pressuring him and saying hey we have to charge people more and our insurance prices are going to go up if we have to pay out these massive jury awards. It's these massive jury awards that are making insurance companies charge so much more for their services for their insurance on companies. Now there is absolutely no proof that that actually occurs that big jury verdicts are driving up

the price of business insurance. There's no evidence that there's a correlation to that. Insurance companies are charging what they're charging and saying, well, we have to pay out these massive damages, so that's why we have to charge you this amount.

There's no proof saying that that is true. even if we did put a cap on what businesses have to pay in terms of damages when they are at fault for damages to regular people, even if we did put a cap on that amount of money, there's no guarantee that insurance prices move. That's an insurance company issue.

Marvin Lim (18:12)
you

Absolutely. There not only is no guarantee, but there is, in my mind, no reasonable evidence to say that one would lead to the other, that A would lead to B. You're right. are some caps. There are not direct caps saying you cannot exceed this amount. But as I mentioned, there's the elimination of double recovery on attorney's fees. There's eliminating the ability to anchor it in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to

some cap, but like you said, what would ultimately happen here is not, or at least there is not significant evidence in my mind to say, once we, let me put it this way. What are the numbers of cases where this is happening? What are the awards? And then once you get that, can you draw a straight line from that? Assuming you have all of that data to,

reducing insurance premiums, again, not just for businesses that can afford to pay and should pay higher insurance premiums, just because they are engaging in high risk activities. Is there a line from saying there have been all of these awards that have been so high to lowering insurance premiums for everyone, for small and big businesses? I'm just not seeing the evidence. And again, I think this is critical, even if there is evidence for that.

Karen Lupton (19:40)
Mm-hmm.

Marvin Lim (19:59)
Are there not other things that we should be focusing on that would far more reduce those costs of insurance premiums? I understand that insurance regulation is a difficult thing because at the end of the day, we're insuring against risk and some people will fall and be harmed, other people won't. We're asking people to shoulder the burden because none of us, we hope that none of us are ever harmed.

in our health or anything like that. But there's nothing that is showing that at the end of the day, most Georgia businesses will benefit with lower insurance premiums because there have been one, two, three, four, even 10 or 20 multimillion dollar awards. There is just nothing indicating that because actuarial calculations are so much more complicated than that. And I would submit to anyone listening,

Karen Lupton (20:46)
Mm-hmm.

Hmm

Marvin Lim (20:56)
involve all of the things like potential for hurricane damage, potential for is this a high crime area or not, regardless of what that particular person, sorry, what that particular business is doing or not. There are so many more structural forces at work that by the way, we as a legislature are in the best position to be able to tackle.

Karen Lupton (21:13)
Hmm.

Marvin Lim (21:20)
tort reform can be tackled by the judicial system. I believe we have some great judges out there that can be there because it's not just the jury running amok. Even when there is a jury, there's also a judge. There's also a judge that in most cases in state sanctioned courts, superior courts, et cetera, are elected judges, so are accountable to the people. it's not just about the jury, but again, beyond that,

Karen Lupton (21:20)
Good point.

good point.

Marvin Lim (21:49)
What are these other things that are leading to higher insurance premiums? And are we not in the legislative branch in the best position to address those? Some of those will take appropriations, certainly, but other of them will be just, you know, we would argue common sense measures that would not, again, the balance in one way or the other towards a plaintiff or defendant. It would just be helpful to all people. And I think that's what, again, we could spend our time on tort reform.

Karen Lupton (22:06)
Mmm.

Ugh.

Marvin Lim (22:18)
But if we're doing that, we gotta spend so much more time on all these other things, in my opinion.

Karen Lupton (22:23)
Yeah, reforming what or changing what regular people, how much we can ask for in damages from, you know, medical malpractice. know, a doctor makes a grievous mistake, makes a grievous mistake in surgery or something like that. And now if we reform,

tort law to say you can only ask for $2 million in damages if you lose a leg or something like that. Insurance companies are trying to tell us, trust us, we'll lower our prices, we'll lower our insurance prices if you just go ahead and not let people get as much in awards. And what you're saying is perhaps, in the example with the woman who got

shot. Perhaps if we're working on safe storage of guns and trying to make sure that stolen guns aren't used in crime, trying to crack down on how apartment complexes use their empty spaces and do they allow gangs to congregate there, working on those things also makes people safer.

and less likely to get shot when they pull up on your property. What I hear you saying is that there's a lot of other ways to tackle protecting people other than just saying, if you get hurt too bad, you're not gonna get the money that you're owed because we say you can't get it.

Marvin Lim (24:06)
Absolutely. And two last points I would make on that is one is like we've discussed, there are some things that will lead to caps, but to be absolutely clear, there's nothing in the proposed legislation, I think this was considered certainly, but this was not in the legislation that says there is an absolute cap on damages. There is nothing in the legislation that says in these types of cases, with these number of people, you cannot recover as a plaintiff more than, you

Y or X number of dollars. If we had that, we might actually, I'm not certainly not advocating for that, but if we had that, we might better actually be able to say, oh, well, if we're capping it and we've had all these damages above that, then you're saving this much and you might be able better to link that to lower insurance premiums, but we don't have that. And to your larger end point, and I suppose that's my larger point too, yeah, there are many other things. I will give.

Karen Lupton (24:54)
Mm. Mm-hmm.

Marvin Lim (25:01)
The second point I want to make in the last example, I was privileged to sit on the House Tree Care Safety Industry Committee this past summer. Tree care is one of the most, if not the most dangerous professions in the state of Georgia. It is also not licensed. So there's a whole policy discussion around that. But one thing that we know is that a lot of these professionals, or so-called professionals, were going out there uninsured.

Karen Lupton (25:10)
All right then.

Marvin Lim (25:31)
then people were being harmed. And in those cases, in many of those cases, it was very clear that that business was at fault, but they were not insured. What are we doing to ensure that people, no pun intended, that all businesses actually do have insurance and are complying with those laws? How much more can we, because I've talked about public safety, I've talked about environmental, but let's meet this where it's at. When we're talking about insurance,

Karen Lupton (25:44)
Hahaha

Mmm.

Marvin Lim (25:56)
We have a lot of people who are uninsured, just like there are uninsured motorists or people who are uninsured with health, but with businesses, what can we do to make sure that these folks are insured even when there is available? I understand sometimes it might be too high, but there are so many people that are just going about that are doing this anyway and are not in compliance with our laws. So I think that's another thing that I would submit is there are so many instances of this, so many examples of things that we

Karen Lupton (26:05)
Hmm in compliance

Yeah. Mmm.

Marvin Lim (26:26)
could tackle and something that I've been saying is we all agree on the overall goal here, but let's not lose sight just by focusing on one solution. If we're proposing one solution, let's take that seriously. I've tried to take this seriously. There are goods and bads to this tort reform, but we can't ignore all of the other particularly systems level factors that are leading to these actuarial calculations, these higher insurance premiums. Again, we are in.

Karen Lupton (26:36)
Hmm.

Marvin Lim (26:52)
the perfect position to solve that. And I think we got to get to work on those many things for us to really see a reduction in insurance rates.

Karen Lupton (26:55)
Mm-hmm.

Let me ask you one last thing. know that you that we've got to close up shop soon, but you made a great kind of very real-life example that I think a lot of people can identify with with saying with pointing out that the OJ Simpson civil trial was a tort. If tort reform was put through in Georgia, how would it have changed?

Like if that case was being tried in Georgia and tort reform was pushed through in Georgia, how would that have changed that case that we all kind of can identify with and know that OJ was found guilty in a civil case, in that tort case of causing the deaths of his wife and her friend? How would tort reform have affected what happened in that case?

Marvin Lim (27:56)
If the viewers are looking at me, what I feel like as a lawyer is back in law school and I just got a hypothetical for the last question on my torts exam, which is one of the very first classes you take. and I just, I was just like panicked because like, I don't know about this, but here's one way you can't quote me on this because I would have to do research, but.

Karen Lupton (27:56)
I don't know.

WHAT?! Seriously?!

Well, we're going to quote you on it because you're on a podcast.

Marvin Lim (28:23)
Well, of where

my mind immediately went is, and if it's not in the OJ Simpson case, at least we can empathize with the fact that, you I know that's a polarizing case, but we know that there was a lot of pain and suffering from many people in that case. What I don't know for sure is whether pain and suffering damages was part of that civil case. I do know there were two claims, wrongful death and battery.

Karen Lupton (28:36)
Well, yes.

okay.

Marvin Lim (28:53)
But I would imagine that if not in this case, certainly in many other cases, that death of someone leads to immense pain and suffering. And what this legislation would do, again, eliminating the ability to anchor pain and suffering for a jury would lower those types of those damages. those rewards, right. And it's tricky because

Karen Lupton (28:53)
Mm-hmm.

Right.

those rewards. What, Yeah, yeah.

Marvin Lim (29:22)
Pain and suffering, we feel it. It's not something economic. It's something like deeply personal. So I get why we want to use kind of like benchmarks, hedonic damages, the damages of life. Like how do you really, when you say that life is inviolable and infinite in value, how can you reduce it to that, to a monetary damage? I get that. But I think it's unfair to

Karen Lupton (29:27)
Hmm.

Mm-hmm.

to a monetary award from a jury, yeah.

Marvin Lim (29:51)
to limit it in a way where we don't allow more discretion in how people imagine what pain and suffering is. We do need to have some standards. I would submit again that there's a judge for that, but I do also think that if you can think of one case, think of that and the immense pain and suffering experienced by people and how you would measure that. Yeah, there are some cases where you might say,

Karen Lupton (30:07)
Mm-hmm.

Marvin Lim (30:20)
they went amok because you know, $40 million, I mean, you could say too, like $40 million for a death, like how much is that for a death, right? But I think on the flip side, we have to be fair, we have to think, well, have there not been cases where pain and suffering was not considered at all or people tied it to like a very specific thought in their head?

Karen Lupton (30:27)
Mm-hmm.

Marvin Lim (30:46)
that ultimately, I guess, again, I don't know this case super well, but lowered the pain and suffering below what we think it should have been. I think that that is something that we can all, again, even though I'm not 100 % sure it was at issue in that case, is a real life of example of what is at stake here and why it's important for us to take this seriously and not just imagine people are giving

Karen Lupton (30:47)
Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Right, yeah.

Yeah.

Marvin Lim (31:16)
hundreds of millions of dollars because A, that is a lot of pain and suffering in a lot of these cases like OJ Simpson case and B, you know, we have other checks like the judge.

Karen Lupton (31:27)
Gotcha. Yeah, the judge has a say on what a jury actually awards for, say, pain and suffering in a tort case. The judge can say, uh-uh, that's out of bounds. I'm tossing it out.

Marvin Lim (31:36)
Correct.

Um, they're slightly more complicated than that, in essence that that certainly can happen. I'm a lawyer, so I have to be, I have to be careful.

Karen Lupton (31:43)
Right, everything's a little more complicated than it seems, but

yeah. Well, you've been awesome, Marvin. Thank you for taking the time to talk with us and try to break this down a little bit to show what tort reform really means for an average person who's trying to get some compensation when they've been harmed by a company or by an entity that should be held responsible for that. So thank you very much for taking the time to talk and explain

this in kind of plain English for folks at home who are listening.

Marvin Lim (32:17)
I hope I did. will admit it's okay to be vulnerable. I was very nervous coming onto here, but I hope that people listened have learned something.

Karen Lupton (32:22)
bless your heart.

Yes. absolutely. We'll make sure they do. Don't worry. We'll make it pretty and at least maybe a little bit fun to learn about what's happening in their state and how this legislation will actually affect them. So again, thank you a million times. We really appreciate it. And I'm going to kind of give, I'm sure they can edit this, that Stacey can edit this. I'll give an outro I think now.

I don't know if Marvin you'll be on it, but I'll just say kind of this. I'll say thank you for joining us on Georgia House Rules as we give a retort to tort reform and what is being done in our state and under the gold dome this session. Thank you for joining us. We hope that you've learned something. Feel free to email us at georgiahousrules.gmail.com if you have any questions.

or something that you want to, or a comment that you want to leave for us. I'm getting all sorts of notifications on my screen. Sorry about that. Again, this will be edited. So join us again on our next Georgia House Rules. I am not yet sure what it's going to be about. I'm going to be honest with you, but we've done tort reform today. We'll have another prescient issue. We'll have another important issue to talk with you about next time. So.

See you next time at Georgia House Rules.