After an insured caused another’s death in a car accident, insurer GEICO tried to settle the matter by providing the decedent’s estate with a check for the insured’s full policy limits. The estate, however, rejected the check and argued that GEICO should have facilitated obtaining a statement from the insured, which might have indicated the insured’s assets. The estate received a multimillion dollar wrongful death judgment against the insured. The insured then sued GEICO for acting in bad faith, arguing that had the estate known about the insured’s limited assets, the estate might have settled for the policy limits. The Fourth District reversed a $9.2 million bad faith judgment against GEICO, concluding that even if GEICO had acted deficiently, that did not cause the excess judgment against the insured.
Before the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Justice Reform Institute as amicus curiae argued that the Court should discharge jurisdiction because the Fourth District’s decision did not expressly and directly conflict with a prior decision on the same question of law.
The Florida Supreme Court, however, reversed the Fourth District, finding there was competent, substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding of bad faith, and observing that the Fourth District had “misstated” the law on bad faith. Chief Justice Canady and Justice Polston dissented, writing in separate opinions that the Florida Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, agreeing with the argument made by the Institute.
FJRI represented Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr. of Holland and Knight LLP and William W. Large.