137 F. Supp. 3d 1320
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- On Jan 6, 2008 Jose Garcia rear-ended a vehicle in which Norma Feijoo was a passenger. Garcia was insured by GEICO with $25,000 per-person BI limits.
- GEICO opened a claim, investigated, and repeatedly sought Feijoo’s medical records and treatment information over 2008–2009; Feijoo retained counsel and submitted a policy-limit demand on Aug. 31, 2009 with medical records showing asserted permanent impairments and substantial treatment costs.
- GEICO made a low settlement offer, continued investigation (including independent reviews and an IME), and repeatedly informed Garcia of the demand and risk of excess judgment; GEICO provided defense counsel when suit was filed.
- IME and GEICO’s reviewing radiologist later opined Feijoo’s injuries were degenerative/pre-existing and not caused by the accident; trial proceeded after a pre‑trial policy‑limit offer by Feijoo one week before trial.
- A state court jury awarded Feijoo $105,300 (exceeding the $25,000 policy limit). Garcia assigned his bad‑faith claim against GEICO to Feijoo, who sued GEICO for bad faith; GEICO moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for GEICO, finding no reasonable jury could find GEICO acted in bad faith under Florida law based on the totality of the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GEICO acted in bad faith in handling the claim | Feijoo: GEICO prioritized profit/incentives, low‑balled and rejected valid medical evidence, ignored settlement opportunities | GEICO: diligently investigated, sought records, warned insured, offered defense counsel, reasonably evaluated claim and relied on IME/radiology | Court: No bad faith — summary judgment for GEICO; no reasonable jury could find bad faith |
| Whether insurer’s delay/negligence caused the excess judgment | Feijoo: GEICO’s conduct and delay led to excess judgment | GEICO: any investigation and decisions were reasonable and based on medical opinions; plaintiff cannot show causation | Held: Plaintiff failed to show insurer’s conduct caused the excess judgment; causation element not met |
| Whether an insurer may refuse an eleventh‑hour policy‑limit demand | Feijoo: GEICO should have accepted pretrial policy‑limit offer | GEICO: late demand came after evidence undermining causation and severity; reasonable to proceed to trial | Held: Reasonable to decline last‑minute demand given record; not bad faith |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence (conclusory allegations about incentives) | Feijoo: GEICO’s corporate incentives show bad faith motive | GEICO: such allegations are conclusory and unsupported by record | Held: Conclusory/inferential assertions insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1980) (insurer duties: advise insured of settlement opportunities, warn of excess judgment)
- Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So.2d 665 (Fla. 2004) (bad‑faith determined under totality of circumstances; ordinarily a jury question)
- Perera v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 35 So.3d 893 (Fla. 2010) (causation requirement: insurer’s bad faith must cause the excess judgment)
- Mesa v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co., 799 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2015) (applying Florida bad‑faith principles; rarity of disposing bad‑faith at summary judgment)