Harris v. Geico General Insurance
961 F. Supp. 2d 1223
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- Sharon Harris was injured in a June 23, 2009 auto accident involving an underinsured/uninsured motorist; she held a $100,000 GEICO UM/UIM policy.
- Harris underwent conservative treatment, an outpatient percutaneous discectomy on September 15, 2009, and later (Feb. 23, 2010) a spinal fusion that greatly increased medical costs.
- Harris served a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) under Fla. Stat. §624.155 on Sept. 1, 2009; GEICO made settlement offers during the 60‑day safe‑harbor period but did not tender policy limits until April 20, 2010.
- Harris sued GEICO for statutory bad faith under §624.155; a jury found GEICO acted in bad faith for failing to settle during the 60‑day period and returned a verdict for Harris.
- Post‑trial, GEICO moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL); Harris moved to disqualify the trial judge based on comments the judge made at a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §144 and §455 | Judge’s comments calling the surgery “junk” and criticizing timing of CRN show bias; recusal or referral to Chief Judge required | Comments reflected trial testimony and invited argument; no deep‑seated favoritism or prejudice; motion is speculative | Motion to disqualify denied (judge’s opinions based on trial record; no legal basis for recusal) |
| Whether plaintiff proved a "permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability" during the 60‑day safe‑harbor | Harris argues surgery and symptoms show permanency or were reasonably anticipated | GEICO points out no medical opinion establishing permanency was provided during the cure period | JMOL: Harris failed to prove permanency during safe‑harbor; medical testimony establishing permanency was absent, so bad‑faith claim fails |
| Proper measure of damages in a §624.155 bad‑faith action | Harris relied on the jury verdict in the underlying liability trial (large verdict) as measure of damages caused by GEICO’s conduct | GEICO contends underlying verdict is not dispositive for bad‑faith damages; bad‑faith damages should be limited to losses caused by insurer’s statutory violation (e.g., interest, fees, damages during cure period) | Court holds underlying jury verdict is not the proper automatic measure; damages limited to those causally related to bad faith (interest, fees from CRN to tender), and insurer must be permitted to litigate damages separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Parrish v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 524 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1975) (§144 affidavit threshold and procedure)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings and expressions of opinion during trial ordinarily do not establish bias requiring recusal)
- Avis Rent‑A‑Car Sys., Inc. v. Stuart, 301 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (medical testimony required to prove permanent injury under Fla. law)
- City of Tampa v. Long, 638 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1994) (permanency of injury must be established by medical testimony under §627.737)
- Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1991) (bad‑faith claim is separate and independent from contractual claim)
- Bottini v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 93 So.3d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (discussing issues around measuring damages in first‑party bad‑faith contexts)