ELLINGTON, Judge.

Joe Burch was injured on December 14, 2004, when a vaporizer exploded. In February 2006, Burch and his wife, Sandra, filed a negligence action in the Superior Court of Fayette County, against A-Tech Equipment, Inc. and other defendants. In June 2006, the Burches amended the complaint and added a claim against L.P. Gas Industrial Equipment Company ("L.P."). After L.P. won a defense verdict,1 it filed a motion pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-68 for the attorney fees and expenses of litigation it incurred after the Burches rejected its settlement offer.2 The trial court denied L.P.'s motion, and L.P. appeals, contending the trial court erred in failing to enforce OCGA § 9-11-68. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.3

It is well settled that

(Citations omitted.) Fowler Properties v. Dowland, 282 Ga. 76, 78(1), 646 S.E.2d 197 (2007).4 In Fowler Properties, the Supreme Court of Georgia determined that OCGA § 9-11-68(b) operates as a substantive law because it "affects the rights of parties by imposing an additional duty and obligation to pay an opposing party's attorney fees when a final judgment does not meet a certain amount or is one of no liability." 282 Ga. at 78(1), 646 S.E.2d 197.5 Consequently, OCGA § 9-11-68(b) may only operate prospectively. Id.

L.P. contends that OCGA § 9-11-68 applies in this case because the Burches filed their tort claims after the effective date of the Code section, February 16, 2005.6 As L.P. notes, the Supreme Court of Georgia stated its holding in Fowler Properties as follows:

282 Ga. at 78(1), 646 S.E.2d 197. Based on this language, L.P. argues that OCGA § 9-11-68 is deemed to have an unconstitutional retroactive effect only on actions that were pending on February 16, 2005.7

As the Burches contend, however, the substantive rights of the parties in a negligence case "are fixed at the time of the injury or event on which liability depends," quoting Glover v. Colbert, 210 Ga.App. 666, 669, 437 S.E.2d 363 (1993). See also Browning v. Maytag Corp., 261 Ga. 20, 21, 401 S.E.2d 725 (1991) (The plaintiffs' products liability action based upon a negligence theory accrued at the time of injury.). This means, inter alia, that the law that is in effect at the time of injury controls the substantive aspects of any ensuing litigation, such as whether the injured person has a right to sue the alleged tortfeasor, the elements of the plaintiff's cause of action, and the limitations, if any, on the defendant's liability. Id. (Because the statute in question, OCGA § 51-1-11(c), which applies a ten-year statute of repose to negligent product liability actions, affects a plaintiff's substantive rights, and because the plaintiffs' injury occurred before the effective date of that Code section, the statute could not be applied to bar the plaintiffs' claim even though they filed their claim after the legislation's effective date.).8 It follows that, because OCGA § 9-11-68(b) operates as a substantive law, and because it was not yet in effect in 2004 when the Burches' substantive rights became fixed, they were entitled to seek compensation in tort from L.P., free from any duty and obligation to pay L.P.'s attorney fees if they failed to obtain a final judgment that was at least 75 percent of any offer of settlement.9 Because OCGA § 9-11-68 is inapplicable to this case, the trial court did not err in denying L.P.'s motion for attorney fees and expenses of litigation.10

Judgment affirmed.

MILLER, C.J., PHIPPS, P.J., BARNES, P.J., JOHNSON and DOYLE, JJ., concur.

ANDREWS, P.J., dissents.

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge, dissenting.

In order to free this plaintiff from the burden of paying L.P.'s fees after the jury's verdict in its favor, the majority misreads the Supreme Court of Georgia's decision in Fowler Properties and misapplies a familiar rule concerning the accrual of "substantive" rights. Although it has not faced the question directly, our Supreme Court has strongly suggested that the fee recovery statute should be applied to a claim brought after the statute's effective date. I therefore dissent.

As the majority correctly points out, our Supreme Court has held that

Fowler Properties v. Dowland, 282 Ga. 76, 78(1), 646 S.E.2d 197 (2007). It is no less true that we have often held in other contexts that a "substantive" right accrues "at the time of the injury or event on which liability depends." See Glover v. Colbert, 210 Ga.App. 666, 669, 437 S.E.2d 363 (1993), and the cases cited therein and at the conclusion of the majority opinion.

The majority's mistake is to take these holdings at face value without understanding the distinguishing features of a defendant's claim for fees under OCGA § 9-11-68. Just as a defendant's liability for a claim accrues at the time of a plaintiff's injury, a plaintiff's liability for fees (after the rejection of a settlement offer) should be held to accrue at the time a defendant is first made obligated to expend fees concerning the legal claim against him—that is, when the plaintiff files her suit. The Supreme Court itself has emphasized the primacy of this date when it pointed out in Fowler that "[w]hen Dowland instituted her tort action ..., the possibility that she may be responsible for paying the opposing party's attorney fees and expenses of litigation by rejecting an offer of settlement did not exist because OCGA § 9-11-68 did not take effect until more than three years later." (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 78, 646 S.E.2d 197. The Supreme Court also went on to say that imposing liability for fees would create an impermissibly retroactive effect only in "pending cases like this one." (Emphasis supplied.) Id.

The only sensible construction of Fowler is that OCGA § 9-11-68 does not have an impermissibly retroactive effect on cases brought after the statute's effective date. This is so because a defendant's fee expenditures can begin only when a plaintiff brings her claim, thus commencing a "new obligation" and creating a "substantive" and enforceable right in that defendant. Fowler, 282 Ga. at 78, 646 S.E.2d 197. The majority cites no cases, and I am aware of none, negating these obvious inferences from binding Supreme Court precedent. I therefore dissent.