GEICO Casualty Co. v. Barber
147 So. 3d 109
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Barber filed a UM claim and a Civil Remedy Notice against GEICO in February 2009, alleging serious injuries exceeding policy limits.
- GEICO initially denied UM benefits and later offered a policy limits settlement after learning of Barber’s later surgery.
- GEICO confessed judgment for $10,000 to Barber in lieu of trial, citing Fridman, before the trial court ruled on related motions.
- Barber moved to amend to add separate UM damages, bad-faith, and declaratory relief counts; the trial court granted the amendment in part and reserved ruling on bad faith.
- GEICO petitioned for certiorari seeking review of the trial court’s order allowing amendments and proceedings beyond entry of confessed judgment.
- The majority quashes the order, holding that the trial court had departed from essential requirements of law by allowing amendments after a confessed judgment and by permitting further damages litigation in the bad-faith context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-confession amendments jurisdiction | Barber argues amendments to add bad-faith and declaratory relief are permissible. | GEICO contends the court had no jurisdiction to entertain amendments after confession of judgment. | Quash; post-confession amendments not allowed |
| Damages after confession of UM judgment | Barber may litigate damages via a separate bad-faith action beyond the confessed UM judgment. | GEICO argues the UM judgment fixed the relief and precluded further damages litigation. | Damages may be litigated in a separate bad-faith action |
| Excess damages and underlying UM case | Damages over policy limits should be determined consistent with Laforet and related authorities in the underlying UM action. | GEICO asserts added damages are foreclosed by the confessed judgment and statutes. | Excess damages are determined in the underlying UM case and may be pursued in bad-faith context |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. v. Fridman, 117 So.3d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (confession of judgment concept governs bad-faith/UM actions; limits on trial proceedings)
- Laforet v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 658 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1995) (damages in bad-faith actions include total damages, excess included, determined in underlying UM case)
- McLeod v. Continental Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1992) (excess judgment concept in bad-faith actions against UM carriers)
- Wollard v. Lloyd’s & Cos. of Lloyd’s, 439 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1983) (confession of judgment doctrine foundational case)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 969 So.2d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (related discussion on excess damages and UM bad-faith remedies)
- Tampa Chiropractic Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 141 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (confession of judgment doctrine applied to attorney’s fees context)