579 F. App'x 796
11th Cir.2014Background
- King injured in a multi-car crash while in a GEICO-insured vehicle; dispute over causation chain among Hahto (Liberty Mutual) and Livingston (USAA).
- King sought UM benefits; GEICO offered no UM because claim value within tortfeasor limits.
- Settlements: King settled with USAA; GEICO advised claim value within tort limits; no UM offer made by GEICO.
- State court UM verdict in 2009 for King; excess verdict not in GEICO's favor due to policy limit; bad-faith claim later removed to federal court.
- Florida bad-faith claim under Fla. Stat. § 624.155 added in 2010; case removed to federal court in May 2010.
- Jury in federal trial found GEICO did not act in bad faith; King appeals on timeliness of removal, preclusion of excess verdict, jury instructions, and admission of Liberty Mutual evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal | Removal untimely under § 1446(b) | Bad-faith claim separately removable | Removal timely for jurisdiction; not fatal to judgment. |
| Preclusion of excess UM verdict for damages | Collateral estoppel binds damages from excess verdict | Excess verdict not binding as a judgment; damages under § 627.727(10) uncertain | Damages not awarded; excess verdict not binding; harmless error if any. |
| Requested jury instruction on negligence | Negligence relevant to bad faith; should be instructed | Bad-faith standard suffices; negligence instruction may confuse | No reversible error; instruction not abused. |
| Admission of Liberty Mutual evidence | Liberty Mutual figures relevant to GEICO’s handling | Evidence of Liberty Mutual settlement prejudicial | No substantial prejudicial effect; evidence properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Global Satellite Commc’n Co. v. Starmill U.K. Ltd., 378 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004) (removal jurisdiction principles; strict construction of removal statutes)
- Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (removal analysis guidance; non-jurisdictional nature of certain time limits)
- Moore v. N. Am. Sports, Inc., 623 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2010) (timeliness of removal is non-jurisdictional; finality considerations)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (non-jurisdictional nature of removal time limits; implications for remand)
- In re Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 104 F.3d 322 (11th Cir. 1997) (procedural defect in removal not fatal to judgment)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) (one-year removal limit non-jurisdictional)
- Laforet v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 658 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1995) (damages include excess verdict under § 627.727(10))
- Gutierrez v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 386 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1980) (necessity of proving bad faith to recover damages)
- Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So.2d 665 (Fla. 2004) (negligence may be considered in determining bad-faith)
- Palm Beach Atl. Coll., Inc. v. First United Fund, Ltd., 928 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1991) (considerations for jury instruction on related issues)