January 28, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 28

Advertisement

January 27, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 26, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Judgment Means Judgment: The Eleventh Circuit Reestablishes that a Consensual Excess Settlement Can be Used to Satisfy Causation Prong of Bad Faith

In a recently published opinion, the Eleventh Circuit revisited – and departed from – its prior, unpublished decision in Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 791 F. App’x 60 (11th Cir. 2019). The Court held that a final judgment that exceeds all available liability policy limits, whether such judgment results from a jury verdict or a consensual settlement, constitutes an “excess judgment” that can be used to satisfy the causation requirement of an insurer bad faith claim in Florida.

In McNamara v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., No. 20-13251 (11th Cir. 2021), Erika McNamara was driving Willard Warren’s vehicle when she caused an accident with another driver. Warren was insured under a GEICO policy that provided $100,000.00 in bodily injury coverage. GEICO and the injured party were unable to reach a settlement and Warren and McNamara were sued. During the course of the suit, Warren and McNamara were presented with two proposals for settlement under Fla. Stat. §768.79. The proposals required Warren and McNamara to consent to final judgments in the amount of the proposal and GEICO had to confirm it would not assert that Warren and McNamara had breached the policy by accepting the proposals. GEICO agreed and the proposals were accepted.

Warren and McNamara subsequently sued GEICO for bad faith, seeking to recover the amounts of the final judgments entered against them that exceeded the $100,000.00 policy limit. The District Court granted summary judgment to GEICO based on the Cawthorn decision, holding that the consent judgments were not “final judgments” because they did not result from a verdict, and thus could not be considered “excess judgments” for purposes of a bad faith action in Florida.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the Florida Supreme Court had previously held in Perera v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 35 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 2010) that an excess judgment can be presented in the form of not only a verdict rendered after a trial, but also in the form of a Cunningham agreement, a Coblentz agreement or a claim by an excess carrier against a primary carrier based on failure to settle. Based on binding Florida precedent, the Eleventh Circuit held that the final judgments entered against Warren and McNamara were excess judgments and that it did not “matter that these judgments resulted from stipulated settlements instead of verdicts.”

The Court then turned to its prior decision in Cawthorn, which was expressly relied upon by the District Court, and stressed that, as an unpublished decision, Cawthorn is not binding precedent. In Cawthorn, the Eleventh Circuit had held, in a reversal of well-established Florida precedent, that only a verdict could satisfy the requirement of an excess judgment in a bad faith action, precluding any actions that were based on a consensual settlement (such as a consent judgment). The Court expressly held that Cawthorn incorrectly analyzed Florida bad faith law.

The McNamara decision is a welcome reversal for policyholders and is a reiteration of the established tenets of the Florida bad faith law.

Copyright © 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 104
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Andrea DeField Associate Miami Insurance
Associate

Andrea finds risk management, risk transfer, and insurance recovery solutions for public and private companies.

Andrea has dedicated her career to helping clients manage risk and maximize insurance recovery. As part of her counseling practice, Andrea adds value to business deals by advising clients on contractual risk transfer through indemnity, additional insured, and required insurance provisions in contracts. She also helps clients identify and mitigate risk before a loss occurs by conducting insurance due diligence for mergers and acquisitions and by conducting audits of clients...

305-810-2465
S. Alice Weeks Associate Attorney Miami Florida Corporate Law Hunton Andrews Kurth
Associate

Alice represents corporate policyholders in complex insurance disputes and bad faith litigation.

Alice handles all aspects of insurance coverage and bad faith litigation and has litigated cases through summary judgment and trial in both state and federal courts. She also consults with corporate clients on insurance coverage issues and provides advice regarding the type and level of insurance coverage needed. Alice was named to Best Lawyers in America’s “Ones to Watch” 2022 list for insurance law.

Alice is admitted to...

305-810-2554
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement