FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 27, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 82 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 90 4- CV-T-2 4M SS SHELLY L APENNA, MELINDA TACKETT , TONYA Y . JEMI SON, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 27 , 20 09 ) Befo re CARNES, KRAVITCH an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Sh el ly L aPen na , Mel in daTack et t an d To nya Jem is on (co ll ect iv el y

“ App el la nt s” ) ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s en try of s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Gov ern m en t Em

pl oyees In su ran ce Co m

pa ny, G ei co Ind em

ni ty Com pa ny, G ei co Gen eral Ins ur an ce Co m

pa ny andGeic o C as ua lty Co m pa ny (col le ct iv el y

“ GEICO”) o n Ap pe ll an ts ’ cl ai m th atGEICO is vi ol at in g F la . Sta t. § § 6 27 .90 1 a nd 62 7.9 02 by ass es si ng a fo urdo ll ar i ns ta ll m en t s erv ic e ch arg e o n aut om ob il e in su ran ce p rem iu m s. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. BACKGROUND App el la nt s ar e GEICO cu st om ers an d p art ic ip an ts inGEICO’s pre miu m in st al lm en t p aym en t p ro gr am . Rath er than p ay th e fu ll am ou ntof t he ir i ns ur an ce pr em iu m at the be gi nn in g o f eac h p ol ic y pe rio d, Ap pe ll an ts pa y

th e p rem iu m

in in st al lm en ts ov er the li fe o f th e p ol ic y . After t he ir i ni ti al do wn p aym en t, App el la nt s ar e as se ss edanin st al lm en t fe e o n e ach subs eque ntin st al lm en t pa ym en t. Flo rid a la w reg ul at es th es e in st al lm en t fe es . It s ta te s:

1 A gen eral li ne s ag en t m ay m ak e rea so nabl e se rv ic e ch arg es for fin an ci ng in su ran ce p rem iu m s o n p ol ic ie s i ss ue d o r bu si ne ss pr oduc edby suc h a n a ge ntor a ge nc y . . . . The s erv ic e ch arg e sh al l no t ex ceed$3 pe r in st al lm en t. Th e m ax im um servi ce ch arg e sh al l n ot
The fe e is intended to cove r the a dditional administrative c osts of an installment 1 pay ment program. 2ex ceed$3 6 p er y ear. In li euof s uc h s erv ic e ch arg es , an i ns ur an ce

ag en t o r ag en cy , at the so le di sc ret io n o f su chag en t o r ag en cy , m ay ch arg e a rat e o f in te res t n otto ex ceed18 pe rcen t s im pl e in te res t p er y ear o n: (a) Th e unp ai d b al an ce; or (b ) The av erag e unp ai d b al an ce as bi ll edov er the term of t he po li cy an d s ub ject t o e nd or se m en t ch an ge s Fl a. St at . § 6 27 .90 1. GEICO cl ai m s t ha t i ts in st al lm en t fe e is equa l t o e ig ht eenpe rcen t s im pl e
an nu al in te res t o n t he unpa idpre m iu m ba la nc e, cap pe d a t fo urdo ll ars . As su ch , it do es no t ex ceedth e ei gh te enpe rcen t s im pl e an nu al in te res t al lo wedun de r Fl a. St at . § 6 27 .90 1. Ap pe ll an ts arg ue th atth e fee is a “ se rv ic e ch arg e.” As s uc h, i t i s ab ov e th e st atut ory

m ax im um of t hr ee d ol la rs pe rm is si bl e und er Fl a. St at . § 62 7.9 01 . The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t the fee re fle ct eda cap pe d ra te of in te res t wel l wi th in th e st atut ory li m it at io n a ndgra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof GEIC O. App el la nt s ch al le ng e th atord er. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws a d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Hol lo m anv. Ma il -Well C or p., 4 43 F.3d83 2, 8 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Summary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te when th e ev id en ce, v ie wedinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty , pre se nt s n o g enui ne is su e o f fac t an d c om pe ls jud gm en t as a
m at te r of law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c); Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Cat ret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 22
- 323 , 10 6 S . Ct. 2 54 8, 2 55 2 (1 98 6)
. 2 III. DISC USSION The di stric t co urt re li edpri m ari ly on t wo fa ct s t o c on cl ud e th atth e in st al lm en t fe e ref

le ct eda cap pe d i nt eres t fe e: (1) GEICO ne ve r as se ss eda fee o n App el la nt s’ firs t p rem iu m pa ym en t b ecau se un ti l Ap pe ll an ts ch os e to m ak e an in st al lm en t p aym en t, ra th er than t he ful l p aym en t, the re was no unpa idba la nc e o n whi chto ch arg e in te res t, an d (2 ) if eig ht een pe rcen t s im

pl e an nu al in te res t o n t he
unpa idba la nc e was les s t ha n fo urdo ll ars , GEICO cha rg edth e le ss er am ou nt . App el la nt s ar gu e th atth ere a re g enui ne is su es of d is pu te d fa ctwith re sp ectto whe th er the in st al lm en t fe e ref le ct s a c ap pe d i nt eres t fe e. W e ad dr es s an d re ject 3 each arg um en t i n turn. Fi rs t, Ap pe ll an ts co nt en d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y rel ie d o n in accu rat e an d u nt ru st worth y “ St at em en t o f Acco un ts ” cre at edby G EICO in pr ep arat io n fo r li ti ga ti on . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredan d re jecte d t hi s ar gu m en t
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, we a pply Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) and not the 2 Florida standard g overningsummary judgme nt. See Hanna

v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.C t. 1136, 14 L .Ed.2d 8 (1965).

In support of their a

rguments, Appellants re ly on Smit h v. For emost Insuranc e 3 Company , 884 So. 2d 341 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 2004). In Smit h, unlike here , the def endant imposed a flat f

ee. T hat fe e both exceede d the maxim um “servic e cha rg e” a llowed under

Fla. Stat. § 627.901 and, at least oc casiona lly , exceede d eighteen pe rce nt simpl e intere st per year . Thus, Smit h provides no support for Appellants’ c laims.

4fo r two reas on s. Ap pe ll an ts st ip ul at edto th e acc ur acy of th e st at em en ts , and

App el la nt s p res en te d n o e vi de nc e to supp ort the all eg at io n t ha t the st at em en ts were i na ccu rat e. App el la nt s s ub m it te d a ffi da vi ts ch al le ng in g t he accu racy of th e “ St at em en t of Acco un ts .” On ap pe al , th ey arg ue th atth es e aff

id av it s cr eat e g enui ne is su es of
m at eri al factsu ffi ci en t t o s urvi ve a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. We dis ag ree. Each affi da vi t al le ge s t ha t GEICO as se ss eda fo urdo ll ar i ns ta ll m en t fe e b efo re an y
ou ts ta nd in g b al an ce was du e. Howev er, the acco un t h is to rie s tha t Ap pe ll an ts 4 at ta ch edto th ei r own affi da vi ts cle arl y co nt rad ic t thi s as se rti on . In ea chcas e, th e fir stin st al lm en t ch arg e was ass es se d a fte r th e in it ia l d own pa ym en t was du e an d,
as a res ul t, af

te r anunpa idba la nc e acc ru ed
. 5 Fu rth erm or e, th e ex hi bi ts att ach edto App el la nt s’ affi da vi ts in di cat e th atth e in st al lm en t fe es on App el lant s’ fin al pa ym en ts were fre qu en tl y les s t ha n fo ur do ll ars . This co nf

irms th atGEICO was n otch arg in g afla t fe e. It a ls o s up po rts th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si onth atGEICO was ap pl y in g acap pe d i nt eres t fe e.

I f no bala nce w as due on theacc ount the four dollar fee could not repr esent 4 interest on the unpa id balance
.

Appellant Jemison’s ini tial down pay ment was dueon 12/03/2006. The first 5 installment charg e wa s assessed on 12/19/2006. Appe llant Tacke tt’s initi al down pay ment was due on 04/03/2007. The fir st installm ent cha rg e wa s assessed on 04/26/2007. Appe llant L aPenna’ s initi al down pay ment appea

rs to have be en due on 10/06/2007 and thefirst installment charg e wa s assessed on 10/22/2007. 5Acco rd in gl y , App el la nt s af fid av it s ar e n otsu ffi ci en t t o ra is e a g enui ne is su e o f fact
. Nex t, Ap pe ll an ts arg ue th atGEICO referredto th e in st al lm en t fe e as a

“ se rv ic e ch arg e” o n Ap pe ll an ts ’ acco un t h is to rie s. As su m in g thi s was tru e, th e di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atGEICO’s us e o f th e te rm “ se rv ic e ch arg e” d idno t rai se a m at eri al is su e o f fac t wi th res pe ctto th e ch arac te r of th e fee be cau se reco rd
ev id en ce u ne qu iv oc al ly establ is he d t ha t the ch arg es were i n fa ctcal cu la te d b as ed
on a cap pe d e ig ht eenpe rcen t s im pl e an nu al in te res t ra te . W e d is cern no erro r. Fi na ll y , App el la nt s s tre ss th atGEICO di d n otrep ort the se fees as i nt eres t in co m e to th e In te rn al Rev enue Serv ic e (“ IRS” ). Howev er, the di st ric t co urt n ot ed th atGEICO pre se nt edun di sp ut edev id en ce tha t the fees were i nt en de d t o o ffs et th e co stof a dm in is te rin g t he in st al lm en t p aym en t p ro gr am . Accor di ng ly, GEICO rep orte d t hi s i nc om e to th e IRS as areduc ti on to th e ex pe ns e o f adm in is te rin g t he in st al lm en t p ro gr am . Thu s, the di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t thi s al le ga ti on was in su ffi ci en t t o ra is e a d is pu te d i ss ue of f actreg ard in g h ow the ch arg es were cal cu la te d. We di sc ernno erro r. Co ns id eri ng App el la nt s al le ga ti on s i nd iv idua ll y an d a s a wh ol e, we
co nc lu de th atApp el la nt s h av e n otrai se d age nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact
. Acco rd in gl y , th e o pi ni on of t he di st ric t co urt i s 6AFFIR MED. 6

Appellants’ r equest for

oral a rgument is denied. 6 7