United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-1844

___________________________ 

Angelique Tilghman

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company; 

Brandy Lott, formerly known as Brandy Glore, formerly known as Brandy Brown, 

formerly known as Brandy M. Meredith

 Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas

____________ 

Submitted: September 22, 2021

Filed: January 3, 2022

____________ 

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

GRASZ, Circuit Judge

The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate Property & 

Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”) and dismissed Angelique Tilghman’s bad 

faith claim. We affirm. 

1

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Arkansas.
-2- 

I. Background2

Angelique Tilghman and Brandy Lott were involved in a motor vehicle

accident. The accident caused $406.81 in damage to Tilghman’s vehicle. Tilghman 

sued Lott in Arkansas county court. Tilghman ultimately claimed over $30,000 in 

past medical expenses, at least $46,000 in future medical expenses, and a total loss 

of earnings capacity between $440,000–$1,000,000. Lott’s insurance company 

denied a duty to defend or indemnify. 

 After failing to obtain compensation from Lott, Tilghman filed an uninsured

motorist claim under her motor vehicle insurance policy with Allstate. The policy 

provided uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage up to $50,000 per person per 

accident. Allstate offered $32,000 to settle Tilghman’s claim. Allstate’s evaluation

was based, at least in part, on a damage estimator software program which estimated

Tilghman’s damages at $36,999. Tilghman did not accept Allstate’s initial offer. 

Allstate ultimately offered Tilghman $40,000 to settle her claim. Tilghman rejected 

Allstate’s offer and added Allstate as a defendant in her lawsuit against Lott. 

Tilghman sued Allstate for, among other things, breach of the insurance contract and 

bad faith refusal to pay. Tilghman’s bad faith claim was based on her allegations 

that Allstate employs certain claims practices to intentionally drive down claim 

values. Allstate removed the case to federal court.

During discovery, Tilghman and Allstate fought over Tilghman’s efforts to 

obtain the following: 1) the unredacted claim file, 2) claims handling and training 

materials, 3) personnel files of Allstate employees who were involved in Tilghman’s 

claim, and 4) Allstate’s financial information and structures. Allstate argued these 

requests were overly broad and violated work product and attorney–client privileges.

2

Because we are reviewing a summary judgment ruling in favor of Allstate, 

we present the facts in the light most favorable to Tilghman and draw reasonable 

inferences in her favor. See Lincoln Benefit Life v. Wilson, 907 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th 

Cir. 2018). 
-3- 

 Three months before the discovery deadline, Tilghman filed a motion to 

compel Allstate’s discovery responses. The district court denied the motion, finding 

the discovery was overly broad and out of proportion to the needs of the case. 

Tilghman then served a new set of discovery requests. Allstate objected to these 

requests claiming they were untimely and overly broad. A day before the discovery 

deadline, Tilghman filed a motion seeking to continue the case or extend the 

discovery deadline. The district court denied Tilghman’s motion, finding the parties 

had already received ample time to conduct discovery. 

Allstate then moved for summary judgment on Tilghman’s bad faith claim.3

 

Tilghman’s response included a request for additional time to conduct discovery. 

The district court granted Allstate’s motion and dismissed Tilghman’s bad faith 

claim, holding Tilghman had failed to present sufficient evidence showing Allstate 

affirmatively engaged in dishonest, malicious, or oppressive misconduct. In doing 

so, the district court did not entertain Tilghman’s request for additional discovery. 

Tilghman moved for reconsideration of the district court’s ruling, which the district 

court denied. 

 

 The summary judgment ruling reduced the case to a single cause of action: 

Tilghman’s contract claim for uninsured motorist benefits. The case proceeded to 

trial where a jury awarded Tilghman $12,000. After trial, Tilghman made an oral 

motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling, which the district court 

again denied.

Tilghman appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion in refusing 

to compel Allstate’s discovery responses which she claims were essential to her bad 

faith claim. Tilghman also argues the district court erred in denying her additional

time for discovery to support her bad faith claim. Tilghman asserts that as a result 

3

Allstate’s motion also requested summary judgment on Tilghman’s claim for 

wrongful action in the performance of the insurance policy, which the district court 

granted in favor of Allstate. Tilghman does not appeal this ruling.
-4- 

of these errors, the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of 

Allstate on Tilghman’s bad faith claim. 

II. Analysis

 

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Lincoln 

Benefit Life v. Wilson, 907 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is 

upheld “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. We may reverse

summary judgment for erroneous discovery rulings only where the errors amount to 

“a gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness.” Vallejo v. Amgen, 

Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 746 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting McGowan v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 

794 F.2d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 1986)). 

Allstate argues this court need not address the merits of the district court’s 

discovery rulings because such rulings, even if erroneous, did not prejudice 

Tilghman. We agree. 

We have held that even if a gross abuse of discretion is found, an appellant 

must demonstrate prejudice before reversal is justified. See Hofer v. Mack Trucks, 

Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 381–82 (8th Cir. 1992). Errors not affecting the outcome of a 

case are not prejudicial. See Vallejo, 903 F.3d at 747 (holding a magistrate judge’s 

order limiting the scope of discovery to exclude a deposition did not prejudice the 

appellant’s case because the deposition would not have supplied the necessary 

testimony her claim was missing). Here, the district court’s discovery and 

progression rulings, even if erroneous, did not prejudice Tilghman because her jury 

award establishes that Allstate acted reasonably in its valuation and negotiation of 

her insurance claim. 

We have previously held that a jury’s finding of fact can negate a plaintiff’s 

claim as a matter of law. See Econ. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn., 

827 F.2d 373, 375 (8th Cir. 1987) (reasoning that where “the jury’s verdict contains 
-5- 

findings of fact that negate a necessary element of a legal theory, then there is no 

prejudice in the court’s refusal to put the factual elements of the theory to the jury, 

for the theory cannot apply in any event”). In this case, the jury’s valuation of 

Tilghman’s contract claim negates her bad faith claim.

Under Arkansas law, a plaintiff claiming an insurer acted in bad faith must 

prove the insurer “engaged in affirmative misconduct that was dishonest, malicious, 

or oppressive,” Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Edwards, 210 S.W.3d 84, 87 (Ark. 

2005), “in an attempt to avoid its liability under an insurance policy.” Aetna Cas. & 

Sur. Co. v. Broadway Arms Corp., 664 S.W.2d 463, 465 (Ark. 1984). An insurer’s 

failure to pay a claim cannot constitute malicious conduct where an actual 

controversy exists regarding the insurer’s obligation. See Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of 

Ark. v. Running M Farms, Inc., 237 S.W.3d 32, 42 (Ark. 2006); Watkins v. S. Farm 

Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 370 S.W.3d 848, 857 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). Interpreting 

Arkansas law, we have found that a failure to make payment of an insurance claim 

can be characterized as bad faith “only if there is no genuine issue or controversy 

between the parties that would justify litigation.” Delta Rice Mill, Inc. v. Gen. Foods 

Corp., 763 F.2d 1001, 1005 (8th Cir. 1985). In determining whether a genuine 

controversy exists between the parties, we have considered a jury’s verdict and 

whether it indicates a defendant was “wholly unreasonable, frivolous, or fairly 

described as dishonest.” Id. at 1004–05. Thus, an insured cannot maintain a bad 

faith claim for an insurer’s valuation where the insurer was reasonable in its 

valuation and justified in refusing to pay more. 

Here, an Arkansas jury found Tilghman’s injuries were worth $28,000 less 

than Allstate’s final settlement offer and $38,000 less than the policy limit. 

Allstate’s final settlement offer significantly overvalued Tilghman’s claim. The 

jury’s valuation establishes there was a genuine issue regarding the value of 

Tilghman’s claim. As a result, it cannot be said Allstate was unreasonable in its 

valuation or unjustified in its refusal to pay policy limits. Allstate thus did not act 

in bad faith as a matter of law. 
-6- 

Tilghman argues the jury verdict is immaterial because a bad faith claim is a 

separate cause of action from a breach of contract claim. She asserts the jury’s 

verdict does not prove Allstate considered, assessed, and negotiated the claim in 

good faith. While Tilghman is correct that a bad faith claim is a separate claim from 

a breach of contract claim, there remains a nexus between the two claims. To 

constitute bad faith, an insurer’s affirmative misconduct must be in pursuit of 

avoiding its obligations under the insurance policy. See Aetna Cas., 664 S.W.2d at 

465. Thus, where an insurer discharges, or reasonably attempts to discharge, its 

contractual obligations, the floor falls out from under the insured’s bad faith claim. 

And a jury verdict on an insured’s breach of contract claim can reveal whether the 

insurer reasonably attempted to discharge its obligations. Cf. Delta, 763 F.2d at 

1004–05. Here, Tilghman’s jury award establishes Allstate’s settlement offers were 

reasonable attempts to discharge its contractual obligations. 

 

Tilghman also argues the jury award is irrelevant because a plaintiff is allowed 

to recover certain categories of damages in a bad faith case that she could not recover 

under a breach of contract action. However, the types of compensation that may be

available to a successful plaintiff under a bad faith claim do not change the analysis 

of whether an insurer actually acted in bad faith. And for the above reasons, we find 

Allstate did not act in bad faith as a matter of law.

In sum, the jury award reveals a fatal flaw in Tilghman’s bad faith claim—

Allstate was reasonable in its valuation of Tilghman’s claim and justified in not 

paying policy limits. Tilghman’s discovery requests would not have cured this 

defect because they were related to Allstate’s claim handling processes, not the value 

of Tilghman’s claim. And Tilghman does not dispute the jury’s valuation or that 

Allstate’s offer exceeded such valuation. Tilghman was thus not prejudiced by any 

of the district court’s discovery or progression rulings. 
-7- 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.4

______________________________

4

We deny Allstate’s motion to strike Tilghman’s reply brief because Allstate 

was not prejudiced by Tilghman’s untimely filing.