[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-14201

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

KIMBERLY K. SISIA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-02376-ELR

USCA11 Case: 23-14201 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 06/06/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-14201

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kimberly Sisia appeals the district court’s dismissal with 

prejudice of her amended complaint against State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Company, as well as the district court’s 

denial of her motion for conditional class certification. We assume 

the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural details of 

this matter, which has been ongoing in one form or another since 

2012. See Sisia v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 22-12833, 2023 

WL 2989832 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2023) (unpublished). In short, Sisia 

seeks reimbursement from State Farm for medical expenses

allegedly incurred because of an automobile accident that occurred 

in 2009. She claims that her automobile insurance policy requires 

State Farm to pay all of her medical expenses stemming from the 

accident up to the policy limit. She seeks relief not just for herself, 

but for “all other State Farm insureds who have been denied 

medical payments coverage for the same reason.” 

We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss a

complaint for failure to state a claim. Lisk v. Lumber One Wood 

Preserving, LLC, 792 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir. 2015). We review 

the district court’s decision to deny class certification for abuse of 

discretion. Hines v. Widnall, 334 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Sisia’s automobile insurance policy states that State Farm 

“will pay reasonable medical expenses incurred, for bodily injury

USCA11 Case: 23-14201 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 06/06/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-14201 Opinion of the Court 3

caused by accident,” and that “[t]hese expenses are for necessary 

medical, surgical, X-ray, dental, ambulance, hospital, professional 

nursing and funeral services, eyeglasses, hearing aids and prosthetic 

devices.” (emphasis omitted). It further explains that State Farm 

has the right to review “medical expenses and services to 

determine if they are reasonable and necessary for the bodily injury

sustained.” (emphasis omitted). Sisia argues that this policy 

“unequivocally requires State Farm to pay all of Plaintiff’s medical 

expenses” incurred from her automobile accident. But Sisia’s 

argument ignores the plain text of the policy, which 

unambiguously states that State Farm must pay only for expenses 

that are “reasonable” and “necessary.” The policy explicitly 

contemplates the possibility that State Farm will not pay for 

medical expenses that it deems unreasonable or unnecessary. 

Sisia’s reading would impermissibly render those parts of the policy 

meaningless. See Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Wattles Co., 930 F.3d 1240, 1260 

n.22 (11th Cir. 2019). 

Sisia relies heavily on Travelers Indemnity Company v. Watson, 

an opinion from the Court of Appeals of Georgia. 140 S.E.2d 505 

(Ga. Ct. App. 1965). But Sisia misconstrues the facts and holding 

of that case. True, the court there considered a policy that similarly 

covered “reasonable” and “necessary” medical expenses. Id. at 506. 

But the court did not interpret the meaning of those words in the 

policy. Rather, the issue in the case was whether the “family 

automobile policy” required the insurer to pay for injuries 

sustained by the insured’s wife. See id. The court held that the 

policy “unequivocally” required the insurer to pay for the insured’s 

USCA11 Case: 23-14201 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 06/06/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-14201

wife’s medical expenses, not that it had to pay for all expenses, 

regardless of their reasonableness or necessity. Id. at 508. 

Because the language of Sisia’s insurance policy plainly does 

not require State Farm to reimburse all medical expenses—only 

those expenses that it deems “reasonable” and “necessary”—the 

district court did not err in concluding that Sisia’s claim for breach 

of contract against State Farm could not survive a motion to 

dismiss. Likewise, the district court did not err in dismissing her 

claim that State Farm breached its duty of good faith and fair 

dealing. Such a claim is not actionable unless the allegations of 

breach are specifically tied to the breach of a contract provision. 

See Alan’s of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corp., 903 F.2d 1414, 1429 (11th 

Cir. 1990). “There can be no breach of an implied covenant of good 

faith where a party to a contract has done what the provisions of 

the contract expressly give him the right to do.” Automatic Sprinkler 

Corp. of Am. v. Anderson, 257 S.E.2d 283, 284 (Ga. 1979). 

Finally, the district court did not err in denying Sisia’s 

motion for class certification when it dismissed her complaint. 

Because her underlying claims lacked merit, it was not an abuse of 

discretion for the court to find her request for certification of those 

claims moot. See Telfair v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 216 F.3d 1333, 

1343 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, the well-reasoned order of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 23-14201 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 06/06/2024 Page: 4 of 4