John F. Hooks v. GEICO General Insurance Company
686 F. App'x 665
11th Cir.2017Background
- Donald Hollenbeck obtained a ~$2 million jury verdict against John Hooks for injuries from an automobile accident.
- Hooks was insured by GEICO, which provided $25,000 per person / $50,000 per occurrence liability coverage; GEICO declined to settle Hollenbeck’s claim.
- Hooks sued GEICO for bad faith failure to settle; after a five-day trial a federal jury returned a defense verdict for GEICO.
- Hooks moved under Rule 59 for a new trial, arguing evidentiary errors (exclusion of adjuster testimony and admission of GEICO’s corporate representative testimony).
- The district court denied the new-trial motion; Hooks appealed, arguing exclusion of adjusters’ testimony as legal opinion and that GEICO’s corporate representative (Scott Jones) was improperly disclosed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and found no reversible error, affirming the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of GEICO adjusters’ testimony about duties of good faith | Hooks: excluded testimony was probative of industry standards and admissible | GEICO/District Ct: testimony amounted to impermissible legal opinions on Florida bad-faith law and risked prejudice/confusion | Court: exclusion was proper; Hooks did not meaningfully rebut that testimony was legal opinion |
| Admissibility of GEICO corporate representative (Scott Jones) testimony | Hooks: Jones was not disclosed as Rule 26 corporate rep, preventing discovery and causing prejudice | GEICO/District Ct: substance of Jones’s testimony was disclosed; Hooks raised objection too late and had notice of topics | Court: any error was harmless under Rule 37(c)(1); no substantial rights affected |
Key Cases Cited
- Overseas Private Inv. Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cty., 47 F.3d 1111 (11th Cir.) (denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir.) (standards on abuse-of-discretion review for new trials)
- Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir.) (deferential review applies to evidentiary rulings)
- Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping Co., 320 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir.) (employees may sometimes testify about industry standards without being experts)
- Adams v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C., 754 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir.) (harmless-error analysis regarding discovery/disclosure violations)