Catherine S. Cadle v. GEICO General Insurance Company, 838 F.3d 1113

Background

In a 2007 car accident, Catherine Cadle (insured by GEICO) sustained neck injuries; defendant-driver's insurer paid $25,000 and Cadle made a $75,000 stacked UM demand to GEICO.
Cadle underwent ongoing treatment through 2009 and had cervical surgery in December 2009; medical bills exceeded $120,000 by January 2010.
Cadle served civil remedy notices (CRNs) on GEICO in Sept. 2008 and Apr. 2009 (60‑day cure period applicable); GEICO repeatedly requested more medical records and did not tender policy limits during the cure period.
In March 2013 a Florida jury in the UM action found Cadle had a permanent injury and returned a $900,000 verdict, later reduced to $816,636.31; judgment was entered for the $75,000 UM policy limit.
Cadle then sued GEICO in federal court for statutory first‑party bad faith under Fla. Stat. § 624.155 seeking the excess UM verdict; a jury found bad faith in Dec. 2014.
The district court granted GEICO’s Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding Cadle produced no expert evidence of permanency during the 60‑day cure period and therefore could not have been entitled to noneconomic damages; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find Cadle had a permanent injury during the CRN cure period	Cadle argued the totality of circumstances supported an inference of permanency at the time of the demand and thus bad faith	GEICO argued no medical or expert proof of permanency was provided during the cure period, so no entitlement to noneconomic damages and no bad faith	Held: No reasonable jury could find permanency during the cure period; JMOL for GEICO affirmed
Whether plaintiff need prove permanency at time of demand to recover noneconomic damages in bad‑faith claim	Cadle: totality‑of‑circumstances approach does not require proof of permanency at demand date	GEICO: statutory scheme requires permanency within reasonable medical probability during cure period to support noneconomic damages	Held: Permanency must be shown within the cure period; absence of such proof defeats bad‑faith claim
Whether insurer’s reliance on insured’s submitted records (vs. independent investigation) can constitute bad faith	Cadle: GEICO should have independently investigated or obtained records/IME	GEICO: insurer may rely on records and representations produced by claimant and counsel; duty does not require more	Held: Insurer entitled to rely on provided records; failure to obtain additional records not bad faith absent other evidence
Whether UM trial damages bind the bad‑faith action	Cadle: sought excess UM jury verdict as element of bad‑faith damages	GEICO: challenged binding effect earlier; but Florida law addressed this	Held: Under Fridman, UM determination of liability and damages is binding in subsequent bad‑faith action; appellate review of UM verdict is appropriate before bad‑faith trial

Key Cases Cited

Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016) (UM trial damages binding in subsequent first‑party bad‑faith action; appellate review of UM verdict necessary)
Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004) (bad‑faith inquiry decided under totality of circumstances; judge may decide bad faith as a matter of law in some cases)
Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991) (insurer not liable for bad faith if uninsured motorist is not liable to insured)
Wald v. Grainger, 64 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2011) (permanent‑injury statutory threshold explained; permanency standard governs recovery of noneconomic damages)
Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000) (60‑day CRN cure period is designed to allow insurer to correct violations and avoid bad‑faith litigation)
Webster v. Offshore Food Serv., 434 F.2d 1191 (5th Cir. 1970) (unequivocal, uncontradicted expert testimony on medical causation can support directed verdict/JMOL)