Sheron Harris v. GEICO General Insurance Company
619 F. App'x 896
11th Cir.2015Background
- In June 2009 Harris, insured by GEICO, was injured by an uninsured motorist; her UM policy limit was $100,000.
- Harris demanded policy limits and sent a Civil Remedies Notice (CRN) triggering a 60-day statutory safe-harbor for GEICO to investigate and decide.
- During the 60 days Harris supplied MRI results, demanded limits, and submitted medical bills (including about $54,082 for a percutaneous discectomy); GEICO’s offers during the period never reached policy limits (final safe-harbor offer $30,000).
- After the safe-harbor period Harris sued and later at a UM trial obtained a verdict (reduced to policy limits) showing significant damages; she then brought a bad-faith suit under Fla. Stat. § 624.155 alleging GEICO acted in bad faith by not tendering limits during the safe-harbor period.
- At the bad-faith trial the jury found bad faith, but the district court granted GEICO’s renewed Rule 50 JML, concluding Harris had not shown permanency by expert medical testimony during the safe-harbor period and that economic bills were not reasonably supported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (GEICO) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris proved “permanent injury” within the safe-harbor period (required for non-economic damages) | Harris contends GEICO should have deduced permanency from treatment and records; trial counsel believed permanency was likely | GEICO argues permanency requires expert medical opinion within a reasonable degree of medical probability and none was provided during the 60 days | Court: No reasonable juror could find permanency proved; JML for GEICO affirmed |
| Whether Harris’ economic damages shown during safe-harbor required GEICO to tender policy limits | Harris asserts submitted medical bills (~$75k) showed damages could exceed limits and GEICO’s low offer was bad faith | GEICO contends the medical bills were excessive/unreliable and its $30k offer was reasonable given available evidence | Court: Economic damages submitted were not sufficiently credible to show bad faith; JML affirmed |
| Whether the UM trial verdict (and jury findings of permanency) supplies evidence of permanency for bad-faith claim | Harris suggests UM trial results can establish permanency or otherwise measure damages in bad-faith case | GEICO disputes reliance on UM trial for proving what was knowable during safe-harbor; also notes no expert permanency evidence was presented in UM trial record for this purpose | Court: Harris waived the argument she would rely on UM trial expert proof; she failed to cite expert medical proof of permanency, so UM verdict did not save her bad-faith claim |
| Whether the bad-faith claim can be premised on total (economic + non-economic) damages exceeding limits | Harris argues statute permits first-party bad-faith claims based on total damages; economic evidence during safe-harbor supports that | GEICO argues provided evidence did not credibly show total damages exceeded limits within safe-harbor | Court: Although statute covers total damages, the evidence presented during safe-harbor was insufficient as a matter of law to show GEICO acted in bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2000) (insurer must evaluate claims in good faith based on proof of loss and expertise)
- City of Tampa v. Long, 638 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1994) (subjective complaints may be evidence but permanency requires expert medical testimony)
- Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991) (no bad faith if insurer reasonably doubts insured’s entitlement)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1995) (first-party bad-faith damages may include total claimant damages)
- Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000) (bad-faith remedy triggered if insurer fails to pay contractual amount within 60 days after CRN)
- Imhof v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1994) (no need to allege award exceeding policy limits to bring bad-faith action)
- Aboy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., [citation="394 F. App'x 655"] (11th Cir. 2010) (if factual dispute exists about whether damages exceed limits, insurer’s view of likely judgment is relevant)