...The legislature also knows how to cap or exclude particular elements from the state’s financial exposure in the tort actions for which it has waived sovereign immunity. See OCGA §§ 50-21-29 (b) (setting caps on the state’s liability in actions brought under the GTCA), 50-21-30 (excluding punitive damages and prejudgment interest from awards of damages).9 The Department points out that the GTCA includes a provision expressly 9 We need not and therefore do not decide in this case whether...

...891, 892-893, 894-895 (360 SE2d 425) (1987). The GTCA expressly abrogated the prejudgment interest holding of 20 Eastern Air Lines, prohibiting awards of such interest in tort actions against the state, see OCGA § 50-21-30 – but the General Assembly did not similarly prohibit awards of attorney fees against the state for litigation misconduct based on statutes outside the GTCA. Finally, we recognize that an award of attorney fees under § 9-11-68...

...gh the county challenged the underlying case based on sovereign immunity). We note in this regard that the monetary sanctions authorized by the CPA are not punitive damages, which the GTCA expressly protects the state from paying, see OCGA § 50-21-30, because CPA sanctions do not punish the state 23 for the tortious conduct underlying the litigation but instead simply ensure that the state follows the same rules that all parties must follow when engaging in civil litigation....