FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 26, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBL I SH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 85 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 6 :0 9- cv -0 02 31 -GAP-KRS
U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMP ANY,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us
W ILLIAM G. BURD, TEW CARDENAS, LLP,
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 ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 6, 2 01 2)
Befo re TJ OFLAT, JORDAN, and KRAVITCH, Cir cu it Ju dg es
. PER CURIAM :
U.S. Sp eci al ty In s u r a n c e Co

. su ed W il li am G. Bu rd , a fo rm er pa rtn er of th e
Mi am i-b as ed la w fir m Tew Card en as , LLP, an d Tew Card en as fo r le ga l m al pr act ic e.Afte r fiv e da y s of te st im on y , th e jury fo un d th at Mr. Bu rd an d Tew Card en as ha d no t

co m m it te d m al pr act ic e.
At tri al , th e di st ric t co ur t al lo wed a se n io r in su ran ce ex ecu ti ve (an d ag en t of Sp eci al ty) to te st ify th at no on e co ul d co m pl ai n ab ou t Mr. Bu rd ’s le ga l pe rfo rm an ce.
In ad di ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t refu se d to in cl ud e so m e la ng ua ge whe n it in st ru ct ed th e jury on le ga l cau sa ti on —l an gu ag e th at Sp eci al ty de si red

. Sp eci al ty no w se ek s a ne w
tri al ba se d on th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s. Afte r a rev ie w of th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’

arg um en ts , we affi rm
. I
O n M a y 7 , 2 0 0 5 , 1 5

- y e a

r - o l d J o s h P a

y n e v o l u n t e e r e d a t t h e V a l i a n t A i r C o m m a n d

W arb ird Mu se um in Tit us vi ll e, Fl or id a. Jo sh was un de r t h e t u t e la ge of Mi ke

McDo no ug h, a 76 -y ear- ol d vo lu nt eer at th e Mu se um
. Mr. McDo no ug h an d Jo sh

s c a v e n g e d a v i n t a g e a i r

p l a n e f o r p a r t s
. V a l i a n t A i r C o m

m a n d , the nonp ro fi t o r g a

n i z a t i o n
whi ch run s t he Mu se um , us ed th es e p art s t o re no va te ot he r ai rp la ne s.
Fo r so m e un kn own reas on , Mr. McDo no ug h as ke d Jo sh to pu ll a pi n fro m th e
vi nt ag e ai rp la ne ’s la nd in g ge ar. Unf or tu na te ly, th at pi n ke pt th e la nd in g ge ar, whi ch

n o lon ge r ha d a hy dr au lic sy ste m , fr om c o l l a p s i n g
. V a l i a

n t , m o r e o v e r , h a d n o t s u

p p o r t e d
th e ai rp la ne by an y ot he r m ean s. Thu s, w h e n J o sh rem ov ed th e pi n, th e ai rp la ne

co ll ap se d. Jo sh s u f

f o c a t ed fo r te n m in ut es , whi ch le ft hi m br ai n de ad un ti l do ct or s

2rev iv ed hi m . Mr. Mc Don ou gh di ed in st an tl y : t he air pl an e d ecap it at ed hi m
. Thi s tra ge dy le d to a le ga l an d in su ran ce fi a s c o f o r Sp eci al ty. Vali an t ha d a
li ab il it y in su ran ce po li cy is su ed by Sp eci al ty. Alt ho ug h th e po li cy pr ov id ed co ve rag e
of $1 m il li on , Vali an t ha d two po te nt ia l cl ai m s on it s ha nd s, fo r whi ch $1 m il li on di d

no t su ffi ce. To m ak e m at te rs wor se , Vali an t was a no np ro fit or ga ni zat io n whi ch ha d
few as se ts an d de pe nde d la rg el y on dona

tio ns. O the r tha

n the in su ran ce po li cy , Vali an t
ha d n o m ean s wi th whi ch to pa y for th e tr ag ic in ci de nt

. Vali an t no ti fie d Spe ci al ty of th e in ci de nt , an d Sp eci al ty, in tu rn , as si gn ed th e
in ve st ig at io n to Ch arl es Tay lo r Co ns ul ti ng , or CTC. W it h pe rm is si on fro m Sp eci al ty,
CTC h ire d Tew Ca rd en as an d o ne of i ts pa rtn ers , Mr. Bu rd , to rep res en t Val ia nt

. In Fl or id a, in su ran ce co m pa ni es owe th ei r po li cy ho ld ers a du ty of go od fai th

. Th i s du ty req ui res th at th e in su rer at te m pt to lo wer th e ris k of a la wsu it t h a t w o u l d

ex po se th e in su red to da m ag es ex ceed in g th e in su ran ce po li cy ’s co ve rag e. W he re, as
in V al ia nt’ s ca se , tw o pe rs ons ar e inj ur ed an d each in jury (at le as t at fir st si gh t) ex ce ed s
th e in su ran ce p ol ic y ’s cov erag e, th in gs ge t d ic ey
. Se e Far in as v. Fla

. Far m Bur ea u
Gen

. In s. , 85 0 So

. 2d 55 5, 56 1 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct

. App

. 20 03 ) (“ Farm Bu reau ’s go od fai th
du ty t o th e in su red req ui res it to fu ll y i n v e st ig at e al l cl ai m s ari si ng fro m a m ul ti pl e
cl ai m ac ci de nt, ke ep the ins ur ed inf or m ed of the cl a i m r e s o l u t i o n p r o c es s, an d m ini m iz e
th e m ag ni tu de of po ss ib le ex ces s jud gm en ts ag ai ns t th e in su red by reas on ed cl ai m

3s e t t l e men t . Th is do es no t m ean th at Farm Bu reau ha s no di sc ret io n in ho w i t el ec t s

to se tt le cl ai m s, an d m ay ev en ch oo se to se tt le cert ain cl ai m s to the ex clus io n of ot he rs ,
pr ov id ed th is de ci si on is reas on ab le an d i n k eep in g wi th it s g oo d fa it h d ut y .”). Sp eci al ty di d no t of

fer to se tt le wit h Jo sh un ti l Mar ch 20 06 —al m os t a y ear aft er
th e tra gi c ev en t. Sp eci al ty, m or eo ve r, of fere d Jo sh $8 50 ,00 0, no t th e fu ll $1 m il li on
. Jo sh reject ed th e of

fer an d cl ai m ed th at Sp eci al ty ha d br each ed it s go od -fai th
du ty. Acco rd in g t o Jo sh , Sp eci al ty dr ag ge d ou t t he set tl em en t fo r to o l on g a nd th en

m ad e a l ow- ba ll off

er. Aft er re

jecti ng th e o ffer , Jo sh su ed Vali an t.
On Vali an t’s be ha lf, Sp eci al ty ev en tu al ly se tt le d wi t h J o s h fo r $9 m il li on
. S p e c i a l t y t h e n t u r n e d a r o u n d a n d s u e d M r
. B u

r d a n d T e w C a

r d e n a s f o r le ga l m al p r a c t i c e
. Acco rd in g to Sp eci al ty, Mr. Bu rd ga ve it th e wro ng ad vi ce. Mr. Bu rd , Sp ec ia lt y

as se rte d, ha d th e du ty to ad vi ce it to of fer Jo sh th e fu ll $ 1 m il li on po li cy li m it

. In st ead , he al lo wed Sp eci al ty to wait 10 m on th s to of fer Jo sh on ly $8 50 ,00 0. Thi s su pp os ed ly

cau se d Sp eci al ty t o act in ba d fa it h a nd fo rced it to se tt le fo r $8 m il li on be y on d th e
po li cy ’s cov erag e li m it

. At tri al Mr. Bu rd an d Te w C a r d e n a s pl ay ed a vi de o in whi ch Pau l Leo na rd

t e s t i f i e d

. M r
. L e o n a

r d i s CT C’ s ch ie f ex ec uti ve of fi ce r, an d h e h a d f

i r s t

- h a n d k n o w l e d g e
of Sp ec ia lty ’ s se ttl em en t at te m pts w ith Jos h. T he vi d e o i n c l u de d the fo llo w ing que sti on

an d a ns wer b et ween Mr. Leo na rd an d Tew Ca rd en as ’ at to rn ey :

4Atto rney : Do y ou kn ow of a n y f act s or ci rcu m st an ces reg ard in g Bi ll Bu

rd ’ s ac tio ns in co nne ctio n wit h th e Vali an t cas e th at wou ld ex po se hi m to in de m ni fic at io n li ab il it y to USSIC ? M r. Le on ar d : Fi rs t of al l, I’ m n o t a la w y er , an d I don’ t know to th e ex te nt th at th e an swe r req ui res so m e type of le ga l
o p i n i o n ba se d up on al l th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is

. Bu t I pe rs on al ly fro m th e—f

ro m th e in fo rm at io n I ha ve an d m y kn owl ed ge of th is case , I do n’t kn ow of an y le gi ti m at e ba si s fo r a co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Bi ll Bu rd

. R. Vol . 10 :1 83 , at 1 3– 14

. Sp eci al ty no te s th at Mr

. L eo na rd is not an at

tor ne y an d ch ar ac te ri zes th is an swe r

as m as qu erad in g as an ex pe rt op in io n on le ga l m al pr act ic e. The distr ic t co ur t the re fo re

erre d, Sp eci al ty argu es , when it all owe d t hi s t es ti m on y
. Sp eci al ty al so as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it refu se d to m od ify th e jury in st ru ct io ns
. At on e po in t, th e di st ri c t c o u r t co ns id ered a ch an ge to th e jury
in st ru ct io n on cau sa ti on
. Bu t, in th e en d, th e di st ric t cou rt cha ng ed it s m in d and di d

no t m od ify th e jury in st ru ct io n as Sp eci al ty req ue st ed

. Sp eci al ty no w m ai nt ai ns th at
th e d is tri ct co ur t co nf

us ed th e jury when it refu se d t o m od ify the jury in st ru ct io ns
.

II
W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it ev id en ce at tri al fo r a cl ear ab us e
of di sc ret io n. Se e Bur ch

fi el d v. CS

X Tr an sp

. , 63 6 F.3 d 13 30 , 13 33 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ).

Bu t, to pr ev ai l on ap pe al , th e pa rty ch al le ng in g th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce m us t al so

5show tha t it ad eq ua te ly pr es er

ve d the obj ec tio n an d t

h a t a n y “ e rr or af fe ct ed a subs ta

nti al

r i g h t

. ” P r o c t o r v

. F l u o r E n t e r s

. , 4 9 4 F

. 3 d 1337 , 1349 ( 1 1 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( i n t e r

n a l q u o t a t i o n

m ark s o m it te d)

. Si m ilarl y , a di st ric t co ur t “ en joy s br oa d di sc ret io n to fo rm ula te j ur y ins tr uc tio ns
p r o v i d e d t h o s e i n s t r uc tio ns ar e co rr ec t sta

te m en ts of the la

w
. ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. L e b o w i t

z , 67 6 F.3 d 10 00 , 1 01 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (p er cu ria m ). W e wil l rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t
fo r it s ref usa l to giv e a re que ste d j ur y ins tr uc tio n onl y if the ap pe ll an t sh ows pr ejud ic ia l
ha rm
. Se e Mer ch an ts Na t’l Ban k of Mob il e v. Uni te d St at es , 87 8 F.2 d 13 82 , 13 88 –8 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9)

. III
A

In it s fir st cl ai m of erro r, Sp eci al ty arg ue s th at Mr. Leo na rd im pr op erl y of

fere d

an ex pe rt op in io n on le ga l m al pr act ic e. The Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e al lo w ex pe rt
wit ne ss es to te st ify, so lo ng as th e ex pe rt “ is qua lif ie d as an ex

pert by kn owl ed ge , sk il l,

ex pe rie nc e, tra in in g or ed uc at io n.” F E D

. R. E V ID

. 70 2. Bu t Mr. Leo na rd is no la wy er

an d la ck ed kn owl ed ge , sk il l, ex pe rie nc e, tra in in g, or ed uc at io n in le ga l m al pr act ic e.
So th e di st ric t co ur t bl un de red , Sp eci al ty m ai nt ai ns , whe n it al lo wed Mr. Leo na rd to

op in e th at Mr. Bu rd di d no t co m m it m al pr act ic e. Dis ag reei ng wit h th is arg um en t, Mr.
Bu rd c o n t e n d s th at Mr. Leo na rd —wh o ha d fir st -h an d kn owl ed ge of th e se tt le m en t

6ne got i a

t i o n s

— o p i n e d as a la

y w itn es s, w hic h is al low ed if the w itn es s fo rm s his opi nio n

on hi s “ pe rcep ti on ,” th e op in io n he lp s th e jury un de rs ta nd th e “ wit ne ss ’s te st im on y ”

o r h e l p s d e t e r

m i n e “ a f a c t i n i s s u e , ” a

n d the opi nio n is “ not ba se d on sc ie nti fi c, te ch nic a l ,

or ot he r sp eci al iz ed kn owl ed ge .” F E D

. R. E V ID

. 70 1.
W e do ub t th at Mr. Leo na rd ’s te st im on y co ns ti tu te d an im pe rm is si bl e ex p e rt

op in io n. Se e Ta mpa Bay Sh ip bu il di ng & Rep ai r Co

. v. Ced ar Sh ip pi ng Co

. , 32 0 F.3 d
12 13 , 12 23 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ W e
. . . ha ve de te rm in ed th at th e te st im on y of fere d by

Tam pa Bay’ s em

pl oyees an d/ or o f

f i c e r s w as of a type tra di ti on al ly an d pr op erl y

co ns id ered la y wit ne ss te st im on y
. . . . Tam

pa Bay’ s wit ne ss es te st ifi ed ba se d up on

t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r i z ed know le dge ga

rn er ed fr om y ea

rs of ex pe ri en ce w ith in the fi el d

. T h e i r

te st im on y was he lp fu l to th e di st ric t jud ge an d rel ev an t to th e is su es pr es en te d in th e

cas e.”) (fo ot no te om it te d)

. Bu t we ne ed no t de ci de th e m at te r de fin it iv el y
. Eve n if th e

sn ip pe t of Mr. Leo na rd ’s te st im on y was im pr op er, it di d no t affe ct a su bs ta nt ia l rig ht

. As al read y m en ti on ed , to ob ta in rev ers al , Sp eci al ty m us t sh ow th at th e di st ric t

co ur t ’s d eci si on affe ct ed a su bs ta nt ia l rig ht , i .e., s ho w th at th e erro r “ pr ob ab ly h ad

a subs ta nti al inf lue nc e on the j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t. ” P roc tor , 494 F. 3d at 1352 (q uot i n g U n i t ed
S t a t e s v

. S t e p h e n s , 3 6 5 F

. 3 d 9 6 7 , 9 7 7 (1 1th Ci r. 2004 ))

. Sp ec ia lty ca nnot m ee t its bur d e n

on th is reco rd

. To be gi n wit h, it is un li ke ly th at th e jury be li ev ed Mr. Leo na rd to be an ex pe rt

7or to be op in in g as su ch

. Fi rs t, no on e pr of fere d Mr. Leo na rd as a n ex pe rt, an d th e
di st ric t co ur t di d no t acce pt hi m as an ex pe rt. Seco nd , Mr. Leo n a rd pr efac ed hi s

te sti m ony by re co gni zi ng tha t he is not a la wy er an d th us co ul d no t gi ve a le ga l opi nio n.
R

. V o l

. 1 0 : 1 8 3 , a

t 1 3

– 1 4

. T h i r d , i n i t s c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t S p e c i a lty str es se d Mr

. L eo na r d ’ s
la ck of le ga l-malpr act ic e ex pe rti se
. R. Vol

. 15 :2 40 , at 38

. Fo ur th , fo r th ei r pa rt, Mr.
Bu rd an d Tew Card en as di d no t refe r to M r
. Le o n a r d as an ex pe rt in th ei r cl os in g
arg um en t. R. Vo l. 1 5: 24 0, at 91

. Mr. Leo na rd ’s te st im on y , m or eo ve r, was cu m ul at iv e. W ard Co pl ey is a la wy er,

an d he to o wor ke d on th e se tt le m en t wit h Jo sh as a se ni or CTC cl ai m ad jus te r. And , li ke Mr. Leo na rd , he te st ifi ed th at Mr. Bu rd di d no th in g wro ng
. R. Vol

. 15 :2 39 , at 64

. Si gn ifi can tl y , Spe ci al ty nev er o bjec te d t o M r. Co pl ey ’s tes ti m on y
. S p e c i a l t y m a i n t a i n s tha t the j ur

y w oul d ha ve co nsi de re d Mr

. L e o n a r d ’ s t e s t i m o n

y

an ad m is si on by Sp eci al ty th at Mr. Bu r d c o m m it te d no wro ng
. Afte r al l, Sp eci al ty

ar gue s, CT C w as Sp ec ia lty ’ s ag en t, an d CTC’s act io ns bo un d Sp ec ia lty

. T he te sti m ony
of a CTC em

pl oyee th at Mr. Burd di d no th in g wro ng wou ld ap pe ar t o t he jury li tt le

m or e th an an ad m is si on by Sp eci al ty. Th e a r g u ment , ho wev er, m is un de rs ta nd s th e
di ffer en ce be twee n an ad

m iss ion , whi ch can be in th e fo rm of a la y op in io n, se e Uni te d
St at es v. Dul ci o , 44 1 F.3 d 12 69 , 12 74 (1 1t h C i r. 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ), an d ex pe rt

te sti m ony
. And it ig no res th e fact th at Mr. Co pl ey to o is a CTC em plo y ee w ho te sti fi ed

8th at Mr. Bu rd di d n ot hi ng wron g.

Fi na ll y , t he jury’ s de ci si on is eas il y su pp or ta bl e ev en wit ho ut Mr. Leo na rd ’s

su pp os ed ly im

pr op er te st im on y
. Mr. Bu rd te st ifi ed (1 ) th at CTC to ld hi m to si t on th e
si de li ne as CTC tri ed to se tt le th e cl ai m s an d (2 ) th at he di d no t te ll Sp eci al ty to m ak e
th e $8 50 ,00 0 se tt le m en t of fer. R. Vol

. 15 :2 39 , at 16 5– 66 ,19 0. Bo th Mr. Leo na rd an d
Mr. Co pl ey affi rm ed Mr. Burd ’s te st im on y
. R. Vol

. 15 :1 83 , at 7, 11 –1 2, 15 –1 6, 2 2;
R. Vol

. 15 :2 39 at 27 –2 8, 52 –5 7. W e as su m e, gi ve n th e ve rd ic t, th at th e jury acce pt ed
th is ve rs io n o f ev en ts

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Hil l , 64 3 F.3d 80 7, 84 2 (11 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ In li gh t of

. . . th e ov erwh el m in g am ou nt of ot he r ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al , we are

no t le ft wit h a gr av e do ub t th at th e ou tc o me w a s a f f e ct ed by an y erro r in ad m it ti ng
th e te st im on y .”). Giv en Mr. Leo na rd ’ s eq ui vo cal , m od erat ed te st im on y , Mr. Co pl ey ’s

m at c h i n g t e s t i m o n

y , a n d t h e e v i d e n c e i n M r
. B u

r d ’ s f a v o r , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s e v i d e n t ia

ry
d e c i s i o n d i d n o t a f

f e c t a s u b s t a n t i a l r igh t. Se e, e. g. , M

aiz v. V ira ni , 253 F. 3d 641, 667– 6 8 (1 1th Ci r. 200 1) (fi nd in g no rev ers ib le erro r in th e ad m is si on of te st im on y whe re pa rty
ha d o pp or tu ni ty to at ta ck tes ti m on y an d o th er ev id en ce s up po rte d v erd ic t).

B Sp eci al ty’ s se co nd arg um en t is th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fai li ng to in cl ud e
la ng ua ge in th e cau sa ti on po rti on of t he jury in st ru ct io ns . But th is arg um en t ca rri es weig ht on ly if Sp eci al ty pr ov es pr ejud ic ia l ha rm
. Se e Mer ch an ts Na t’l Ban k , 87 8 F.2 d

9a

t 1 3 8 8 –89. T his Sp ec ia lty ca nnot do, fo r, as Mr

. Bu

rd hig hli ght s , t

h e j u r y n e v e r r e a c h e d
th e cau sa ti on is su e.
The ve rd ic t fo rm fir st as ke d whe th er Mr. Bu rd was ne gl ig en t. Onl y if th e jury

an swe red “ y es ” to th at qu es ti on di d th e ve rd ic t fo rm as k th e jury to co ns id er whe th er
Mr

. Bu rd ’ s ac tio ns ca

use d S p e c i a l t

y ’ s da m ag e. Sp ec ia lty w an te d a m odi fi ed ins tr uc tio n
wit h reg ard to th is cau sa ti on qu es ti on
. Bu t, be cau se it fo un d th at Mr. Bu rd di d no t act

ne gl ig en tl y , th e jury ne ve r go t to cau sa ti on
. It is th us un cl ear ho w, ex act ly, Sp eci al ty

co ul d su ffer an y ha rm he re. In de ed , in it s rep ly br ie f, Sp eci al ty ad m it s th at “ it is of te n
di ffi cu lt to act ua ll y pr ov e th e co nf usi on ca use d by an er

ro ne ous ins tr

uc tio n” bu t in si st s
th at it is so m eh ow o bv io us he re. We dis ag ree.
IV
The jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Mr. Bu rd an d Tew Ca rd en as is affi rm ed

. A F F I R M E D .

10