[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 15 45 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd er

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -2 05 46 -J EM ROBERT E. TARDIFF, JR ., as Trus te e fo r th e Ban krup tc y Est at e o f Rh on daJ. Bartl ett, RACHEL BOZZELL A, SIM ON TURNER, Plai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defend an t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 1 of 10PER CURI AM:

Ro be rt Tar di ff, as tru st ee fo r Rh on daBart le tt ’s ban kr up tc y est at e; Rach el Bo zzel la , Bart le tt ’s dau gh te r; a ndSim on Turn er ap pe al th e jud gm en t i n fa vo r of GEICO In de m

ni ty Com pa ny onth ei r in su ran ce b adfai th cla im s. Th ey co nt en d th ata nu m

be r of th e d is tri ctco urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s wer e err on eo us an d t ha t t he co urt s ho ul d h av e g iv enon e o f th ei r pr op os edjury in st ru ct io ns . I. On Se pt em

be r 28 , 20 02 , Boz zel lawreck edhe r m ot he r’s car. Tu rn er was rid in g i n t he car an d s uf

fere d s eri ou s i nju rie s. Th e n ex t d ay , Boz zel la ’s m ot he r rep orte d t he acci de ntto GEICO, whi ch in su redth e carun de r a p ol ic y with b od il y in jury liab il it y

li m it s o f $1 0,0 00 pe r pe rs on an d $ 20 ,00 0 p er ac ci de nt . The p ol ic y al so ha d ape rs on al in

jury pro te ct io n l im itof $ 10 ,00 0 anda m ed ic al pa ym en ts li m itof $ 5,0 00 . GEICO creat eda cl ai m s fi le forth e acc id en t an d a ss ig ne d i t t o a n ad jus to r na m edVick ie Pet ers on . GEICO th enhi reda la wy er, Curtr ig htTrui tt , to res ol ve an y

cla im s ag ai ns t Bo zzel laan d B art le ttari si ng fro m th e acc id en t. Turne r al so hi reda la wy er, Ro na ldCro ft, t o re so lv e h is cla im s ag ai ns t Bo zzel laan d Bart le tt . The cla im s ad

jus to r, Pet ers on ; GEICO’s l awy er, Tru it t; an d Tu rn er’s l awy er, Cro ft, trie d s et tl e Turne r’s cl ai m s, b utth e th ree wer e unabl e to reac h an a gr eem en t. 2 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 2 of 10Turn er the n fi le d s ui t i n F lo rid a st at e co urt an d wo n ajud gm en t ag ai ns t Bo zzel la

an d B art le ttfor$1 ,12 6,1 62 .95 , whi ch ex ceed edth e $ 10 ,00 0 b od il y in jury lim itof Bart le tt ’s in su ran ce p ol ic y with GEICO. Tard iff , Boz zel la , andTurn er, wh om we wil l re fer t o c ol le ct iv el y as “ th e pl ai nt iff s,” f il eda di ve rs it y

act io n a ga in stGEICO infed eral di st ric t co urt as se rti ng Fl or id a st at e la w cla im s o f in su ran ce b adfai th . They al le ge d tha t GEICO br each edit s fi du ci ary du ty of go odfai th inha nd li ng Turn er’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Bo zzel laan d B art le tt . The ca se wentto tri al . The d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury on Flo rid a la w abo utin su ran ce b adfai th , bu t t he co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns di d n ot in cl ud e th e p la in ti ffs ’ pr op os edin st ru ct io n abo utho w set tl em en t ag reem en ts are fo rm edan d e nf

or cedun de r Fl or id a la w. The jury foundth atGEICO di d n otactin ba d fa it h, an d the co urt en te reda jud gm en t i n fa vo r of GEICO. The p la in ti ffs ’ ap pe al , con te nd in g t ha t t he co urt m ad e a num be r of erro ne ou s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s du rin g t ria l an d t ha t i t s ho ul d h av e g iv enth ei r pr op os edjury in st ru ct io n. II. The fir stev id en ti ary ru li ng th atth e p la in ti ffs co nt en d was erro r is th e di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to ex cl ud e th e ex pe rt t es ti m on y of R ic ha rdHol br oo k, an in su ran ce co ns ul ta nt . The p la in ti ffs want edto cal l Ho lb ro okto tes ti fy ab ou t in du st ry st an da rd s fo r ha nd li ng in su ran ce cl ai m s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ex cl ud ed 3 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 3 of 10Hol br oo k’s t es ti m on y aft er the pl ai nt iff

s p ro ffer editat t ria l, ex pl ai ni ng th at

“ th ere’s n o que st io n . . . th atth is is so m ethi ng th atan y no rm al pe rs on co ul d fi gu re ou t i f [GEICO was ] reas on ab le or u nr eas on ab le ” an d t ha t “ th e ex pe rt t es ti m on y ba se d o n wh atI ha ve be ento ldso far . . . is ba si cal ly tell in g [the juro rs ] ho w to do th ei r job .” The p la in ti ffs arg ue th atHol br oo k’s t es ti m on y wou ldha ve be en he lp fu l t o t he jury be cau se ex pe rt t es ti m on y is “ in di sp en sabl e[] to est ab li sh th e pr ev ai li ng in du st ry

st an da rd s fo r th e in ve st ig at io n a ndha nd li ng of c la im s i n act io ns bro ug htun de r Fl or id a law.” App el la ntBr. 3 8. W e rev ie w on ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si onto ex cl ud e ex pe rt t es ti m on y . Ros en fel d v . Ocean iaCru is es , Inc ., 65 4 F .3d11 90 , 11 92 (11 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . As we h av e st at ed : Und er the ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard. . . th ere wi ll be oc cas io ns in whi ch we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt ev enth ou gh we wou ldha ve go ne th e o th er way ha d i t b een ou r cal l. . . . The ab us e o f di sc ret io n st an dardall ows a ran ge of c ho ic e fo r th e d is tri ctco urt, s o l on g a s t ha t ch oi ce d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t. Uni te d S ta te s v . Frazi er, 3 87 F.3d12 44 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). In o th er wor ds , we wil l d eferto th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on un le ss itis “ m an ife st ly erro ne ou s.” R os en fel d, 6 54 F.3dat 1 19 2 (q uo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Inde te rm in in g t he adm is si bi li ty of ex pe rt t es ti m on y , “ tri al co urts m us t co ns id er wh ethe r: (1 ) th e ex pe rt i s qua li fie d t o t es ti fy co m pe te nt ly regar di ng th e 4 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 4 of 10m at te rs he in te nd s t o a dd res s; (2) th e m etho do lo gy by whi ch th e ex pe rt r each es hi s co nc lu si on s i s s uf

fic ie nt ly reli ab le as d et erm in edby the so rt o f in qu iry m an da te d in Daub ert ; an d (3 ) th e te st im on y ass is ts th e tr ie r of

fact , th ro ug h t he ap pl ic at io n o f sc ie nt ifi c, te ch ni cal , or s pe ci al iz edex pe rti se , to un de rs ta ndth e ev id en ce o r to de te rm in e a fac t i n i ss ue .” Fraz ie r, 38 7 F .3dat 1 26 0. Th e d is tri ctco urt ex cl ud ed Hol br oo k’s t es ti m on y

ba se d o n t he th irdfact or , con cl ud in g t ha t h is tes ti m on y wou ldno t b e h el pf

ul to th e jury. Exp erttes ti m on y he lp s t he jury “ if i t co nc ern s m at te rs th atare b ey on d t he un de rs ta nd in g o f th e av erag e la y pe rs on .” Id . at 1 26 2. In F lo rid a, anin su rer h as a fi du ci ary du ty to ac t “ in go odfai th an d wi th du e reg ardforth e in te res ts of t he in su red ” whe n “ ha nd li ng th e d efen se of c la im s ag ai ns t i ts in su red .” Bo st . OldCo lo ny Ins . Co. v . Gut ie rrez , 38 6 S o. 2 d 7 83 , 78 5 (Fl a. 19 80 ). Thatm ean s “ th e in su rer [m us t] adv is e th e in su redof s et tl em en t op po rtu ni ti es , . . . advi se as t o t he pro babl e o ut co m e o f th e li ti ga ti on , . . . warnof th e p os si bi li ty of anex ces s ju dg m en t, an d . . . advi se th e in su redof a ny ste ps he m ig httak e to av oi d [t he ] sam e.” Id . The in su rer m us t al so “ in ve st ig at e th e fac ts , gi ve fai r co ns id erat io n t o aset tl em en t o fferth atis no t u nr eas on ab le un de r th e fact s, an d s et tl e, if

po ss ib le , wher e a rea so nabl y pru de ntpe rs on , facedwith t he pr os pe ctof p ay in g t he to ta l re co ve ry , wou lddo so .” Id . To pr ov e th atanin su rer act edin ba d fa it h, t he reb y bre ach in g i ts fiduc ia ry

du ty, a p la in ti ff m

us t p ro ve th at 5 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 5 of 10th e in su rer d idno t “ us e th e sa m e d eg ree o f car e an d d il ig en ce as a pe rs on of

or di na ry care an d p ru de nc e sh ou ldex erci se in th e m an ag em en t o f hi s o wn bu si ne ss .” Id . The pl ai nt iff

s h av e n otsh own th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n co nc lu di ng th atHol br oo k’s t es ti m on y wou ldno t h av e b een he lp fu l t o t he jury in de ci di ng whet he r GEICO br each edit s fi du ci ary du ty of go odfai th . They co nc ed e th atno Flo rid a co urt h as he ldth atpl ai nt iff s m us t p res en t ex pe rt t es ti m on y to pro ve anin su rer a ct edinba d fa ith. Se e App el lantBr. 3 8. No r ha ve th ey sh ownth at

“ an y no rm al pe rs on ” wou ldbe un ab le to de ci de whet he r GEICO act edinba d fa it h wit ho utth e as si st an ce o f expe rt t es ti m on y . Cf. Tho m ps on v. St at e Farm

Fir e & Cas . Co., 3 4 F .3d93 2, 9 39 (10 th Cir . 19 94 ) (“ [J ]uro rs m ay pro pe rly be v ie wedas cap ab le of e va lu at in g g oo d a ndba d fa it h (ju stas t he y reg ul arl y de te rm in e wha t co ns ti tu te s t he co nduc t o f a ‘reas on ab le ’ pe rs on ) by bri ng in g t he ir o wn co m m on se ns e an d l ife expe rie nc e to be ar.”) . III. W e n ow turn t o t he di st ric t co urt’s o th er ev id en ti ary ru li ng s t ha t t he pl ai nt iff s co nt en d wer e err on eo us . W e rev ie w on ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on th e ad m is si bi li ty of ev id en ce, an d “ ev id en ti ary ru li ng s wil l b e o ve rtu rn edon ly if th e m ov in g p arty est ab li sh es th atth e ru li ng res ul te d i n a 6 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 6 of 10subs ta nt ia l p reju di ci al effe ct .” Mo li no s Val le Del Ci ba o, C. p orA. v. Lam a, 63 3

F.3 d 1 33 0, 1 35 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . A. The pl ai nt iff

s co nt en d t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredin all owi ng GEICO “ to el ic itsel f-s erv in g e xp ertop in io ns fro m Ms . Pet ers on an d M [r]. Truit t,” wh o t he pl ai nt iff s ca ll edas f

actwitne ss es . App el la ntBr. 4 4. Th e p la in ti ffs co nt en ti on is ba se d o n t he fol lo win g ru li ng s o f th e d is tri ctco urt. The co urt o ve rru le d t he pl ai nt iff s’ ob jecti on s t o P et ers on ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t: (1) whatsh e th ou gh t was th e m os t re as on ab le way

forhe r to res po ndto Turn er’s s ettl em en t o ffer ; (2 ) whe th er,

“ in [he r] exp eri en ce h an dl in g t he set tl em en t cl ai m s o n b eh al f of GEICO, . . . an at to rn ey who want edsp eci fic st at em en ts fro m [GEICO’s] in su redtypic al ly ask [ed ] fo r th em sp eci fic al ly”; an d (3 ) whe th er a GEICO t ech ni cal cla im s m em or an da ap pl ie d t o Tu rn er’s cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt al so ov erru le d t he pl ai nt iff s’ ob jecti onto Trui tt ’s tes ti m on y th athe do es no t kno w whatth e te rm “ ge ne ral rel eas e” m ean s. Afte r rev ie win g P et ers on ’s andTrui tt ’s tes ti m on y , we con cl ud e th atth ey te st ifi edas f

actwitne ss es an d c on fin edth ei r te st im on y to st at em en ts ba se d o n th ei r own ex pe rie nc es an d p ers on al kn owl ed ge . For t ha t re as on , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n oterr i n o ve rru li ng th e p la in ti ffs ’ ob jecti on s t o P et ers on ’s andTrui tt ’s 7 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 7 of 10te st im on y . B.

The pl ai nt iff

s n ex t co nt en d t ha t t he co urt erredinsu st ai ni ng GEICO’s ob jecti on s t o t wo que st io ns th atth e p la in ti ffs ask edTrui tt : (1 ) “ Doe s t he po li cyho ld er . . . hav e an y ab il it y to co ntro l wh atGEICO do es in so far a s res po nd in g t o s et tl em en t o ffer s? ” an d (2 ) “ Wha t wo ul d h av e h ap pe ne d i f Mr. Turn er h adex ecu te d t h[ e] relea se [Pet ers on sen t h im ] in so far a s re co ve rin g ad di ti on al be ne fit s fr om

GEICO? ” The y

als o c on te ndth atth e co urt erredin su st ai ni ng GEICO’s ob

jecti on s t o t wo que st io ns th atth ey ask edCro ft: (1) “ Whe n y oum ak e a s et tl em en t o fferto anin su ran ce co m pa ny, how ca n i t b e acc ep te d? ” an d (2 ) “ If GEICO h adacce pt edy ou r Feb ru ary 4, 2 00 4 s ettl em en t o ffer , cou ldMr. Turn er ch an ge hi s m in d andba ckou t o f th e o ffer ? ” The pl ai nt iff s ar gu e th atby no t al lo win g t he m

to askth os e que st io ns of Tru it t an d C ro ft, t he co urt “pr ecl ud ed [th em ] fro m

eli ci ti ng ex pe rt- type t es ti m on y fro m factwitne ss es as [ th e co urt] had al lo wedGEICO to do ” fro m Pet ers on an d Tru it t. Ap pe ll an t Br . 46 . That arg um en t fa il s b ecau se , as we h av e jus t ex pl ai ne d, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t al lo w GEICO to eli ci t ex pe rt t es ti m on y fro m Pet ers on an d Tru it t. C. The las t ev id en ti ary ru li ng th atth e p la in ti ffs co nt en d was erro r was th e 8 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 8 of 10co urt’s d eci si on to adm itin to ev id en ce two d oc um en ts in di cat in g t ha t Tu rn er h ad

as si gn edto m ed ic al -car e p ro vi de rs hi s ri gh t t o re cei ve paym en ts un de r hi s pe rs on al in

jury pro te ct io n c ov erag e. The p la in ti ffs ob jecte d a t t ria l, ar gu in g t ha t th e d oc um en ts are i rrel ev an t, bu t t he co urt o ve rru le d t ha t o bjec ti on . W e can no t 1 co nc lu de th atth e co urt’s ru li ng was a n abu se of d is cret io n b ecau se , eve n i f th e do cu m en t’s were irr el ev an t, the pl ai nt iff s h av e n otsh ownth atth e d oc um en ts ’ adm is si on ha d a“ subs ta nt ia l p reju di ci al effe ct .” Mo li no s Val le Del Ci ba o, C. p or A., 63 3 F .3dat 1 35 4 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . IV. Fi na ll y , we tu rnto th e p la in ti ffs ’ co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d ha ve gi ve n t he ir p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io n abo utho w set tl em en t ag reem en ts are fo rm edan d e nf

or cedun de r Fl or id a la w. The p la in ti ffs arg ue th atwitho utth e in st ru ct io n t he jury “ ha d n o b as is to un de rs ta ndth e rea so n wh y Mr. Turne r’s cl ai m was no t s et tl edwas b ecau se GEICO di d n otpro pe rly accep t M r. Turn er’s o ffer .” App el la ntBr. 5 1. We revi ew on ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s jury in st ru ct io n ru li ng s. Sh ap s v . Pro vi de ntLife & Acc. In s. Co ., 24 4 F .3d87 6, 8 87 The plaintiffs a lso argue that “a ny probative va lue of the [documents] was substantially 1 outweighed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice . . . unde r F eder al Rule of Evidenc e 403.” Appellant B r. 53. The pla intiffs waived that argument beca use they objected to the a dmission of the documents only

on rele vancy

grounds in the district court. See J udd v. Rodman, 105 F.3d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir. 1997) (“ [A] n objection on spec ific grounds does not pre serve the er ror f or purposes of a

ppeal on other

grounds.”) . 9 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 9 of 10(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . A dis tri ctco urt ab us es it s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to gi ve a reque st edjury in st ru ct io n “ on ly if: (1 ) th e reque st edin st ru ct io n c orrect ly stat ed th e la w, (2) t he in st ru ct io n d eal t wi th anis su e p ro pe rly befo re the jury, an d (3 ) th e fai lu re t o g iv e th e in st ru ct io n re su lt edin pre jud ic ia l h arm

to th e reque st in g p arty .” Bea rin t ex rel . Beari ntv. Do rel l J uv en il e Gro up , Inc ., 38 9 F .3d13 39 , 13 50 (11 th Ci r. 20 04 ). The pl ai nt iff

s h av e n otsh own th atth ei r pr op os edin st ru ct io n d eal t wi th an is su e p ro pe rly befo re the jury. The i ss ue be fo re the jury was whet he r GEICO act edin ba d fa it h i n h an dl in g Tu rn er’s cl ai m ag ai ns t Bo zzel laan d B art le tt , andth e jury w as pro pe rly ins tru ct edon in su ran ce b adfai th . Whe th er GEICO’s res po ns e to Turn er’s o fferwas aleg al ly suf fic ie ntacce pt an ce was no t an is su e p ro pe rly be fo re the jury. Andev enif i t was , th e p la in ti ffs have no t s ho wn tha t t he y were pr ejud ic edby the co urt’s fa il ur e to gi ve th ei r pr op os edin st ru ct io n. 2 V. Fo r th e rea so ns we ha ve di sc us se d, we af firm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co urt. AFFIRMED. The plaintiffs a lso contend that the c umulative eff ect of the district court’s e rrone ous 2 ruling s deprived the m of a fa ir trial, but “[w]i thout harmful er rors, ther e ca

n be no cumulative eff ect c ompelling r ever sal.” See United States v. Ba rshov, 733 F.2d 842, 852 ( 11th Cir. 1984). 10 Case: 11-15450 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 10 of 10