The liability carrier for a defendant in a single-car accident previously issued a policy with $10/$20 limits. One of the passengers, a minor, sustained serious injuries and one of her fingers was amputated as a result of the accident. Jaimes v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 534 Fed. Appx. 860, 2013 WL 4106364 *1 (11th Cir. August 15, 2013).
The evidence established that the carrier knewthat the young girl's injuries "well exceeded the Policy's limits." The carrier acknowledged that from the day of the accident, "the injury warranted a tender of the Policy's limits." Jaimes v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 534 Fed. Appx. 860, 2013 WL 4106364 *6 (11th Cir. August 15, 2013).
Yet the carrier did not tender its policy limits. The case went to verdict and judgment against its insured for $227,493.85, or over 22 times the individual policy limit and over 11 times the aggregate policy limit. Jaimes v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 534 Fed. Appx. 860, 2013 WL 4106364 *2 (11th Cir. August 15, 2013).
The carrier defended on many grounds including that its conduct may have been negligent, but it did not act in bad faith in failing to settle in this case. The carrier's adjuster tried to initiate settlement with the injured claimants but he called a wrong number.
After that, he wrote "numerous letters (to multiple addresses) and left a few voicemails (at various numbers)" asking the claimants to contact him. However, none of the letters or voicemails communicated his company's desire to settle the young lady's injury claim. Jaimes v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 534 Fed. Appx. 860, 2013 WL 4106364 *1 (11th Cir. August 15, 2013).
On appeal, the Federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence of bad faith under Florida law here. Jaimes v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 534 Fed. Appx. 860, 2013 WL 4106364 *6 (11th Cir. August 15, 2013). In particular, the Federal appellate court pointed out that "negligence in handling the underlying claim is not a defense, but rather, is material in determining bad faith." Jaimes v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 534 Fed. Appx. 860, 2013 WL 4106364 *5 (11th Cir. August 15, 2013).
One of the carrier's other contentions was equally unavailing. The carrier contended on appeal that there could be no bad faith because the injured claimant never made a settlement demand for the policy limits "within the time period in which she would have accepted the Policy's limits to settle her claim." This did not determine the outcome under settled Florida law in this case. The Eleventh Circuit panel followed Florida law in holding that the absence of a formal demand in such a case as this, does not preclude a finding of bad faith, citing a Florida case decided 23 years before. Jaimes v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 534 Fed. Appx. 860, 2013 WL 4106364 *6 (11th Cir. August 15, 2013). To like effect, see Hayas v. GEICO General Insurance Co., 2013 WL 4495196 *2-*3 (M.D. Fla. August 21, 2013)("The Court rejects GEICO's assertion that dismissal is warranted because Hayas has not identified a specific offer to settle that GEICO neglected to accept.").
© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. No claim to original U.S. Government works.
Please Read The Disclaimer.