Articles Tagged with jurisdiction

Insurance companies and corporate defendants often try to deny a legitimate personal injury claim. It is one thing to litigate a case in court. But it is quite another when a defendant raises arguments it knows to be frivolous.

For this reason, Georgia law allows successful personal injury plaintiffs to ask for a determination of whether or not the defense “presented a frivolous claim or defense.” This requires the court to hold a “bifurcated” or two-part hearing. In the first part, the “trier of fact,” which is typically a jury in personal injury lawsuits, decides if the challenged defense was in fact frivolous. If the answer is “yes,” then the trier of fact must then assess an appropriate award of damages to the plaintiff, which may include attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Showan v. Pressdee

Georgia courts enforce strict jurisdictional requirements when it comes to personal injury lawsuits. This means you cannot proceed with a case unless the court has both the appropriate subject-matter and geographic authority over the parties. Even when a case does satisfy all jurisdictional requirements, a court may still refuse to hear if there is another, more “convenient” forum available to resolve the dispute.

La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc.

This is known as the doctrine of “forum non conveniens.” Under Georgia law, a court may “decline to adjudicate” a lawsuit whenever it “finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state.” This rule, formalized by legislation in 2005, superseded earlier rulings by the Georgia Supreme Court on this subject.