FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T May 12, 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 14 28 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 0 5- 00 69 7 C V-T-2 4- EAJ

GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY,

Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee ,

ve rs us

ALICIA EUGENIA ARCE,

D e f e n d a n t

- C o u n t e r C l a i m a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 12 , 20 09 )

Befo re CARNES, HULL and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Geic o Cas ua lt y C o mpan y fil ed a de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n ag ai ns t Jo y

Bea uf or d an d Ali ci a Eug en ia Arce. Geic o so ug ht a “ de cl arat io n th at it ha s no fu rth erdu ty to de fen d Arce fro m th e cl ai m s of Bea uf or d an d no du ty to in de m

ni fy Bea uf

or d

fo r th e jud gm en t s he ha s o bt ai ne d a ga in st Arce.” (R.5 -2 77 at 1 , R.28 2 a t 1 .) Arce 1

an d Bea uf

o r d co un te rcl ai m ed

. Bo th Arce an d Bea uf or d br ou gh t ba d fai th cl ai m s

ag ai ns t Geic o, an d Arce al so al le ge d ci vi l co ns pi racy an d i n t e n t i o na l in fli ct io n of

em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e ci vi l co ns pi racy an d

in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m s on th e gr ou nd th at th ey were ba rred

by Fl or id a’s eco no m ic lo ss ru le

. At th e cl os e of a l l ev id en ce, be fo re th e cas e was

su bm it te d to th e jury, Arce m ov ed un de r Ru le 50 (a) fo r a jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w

on th e de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n. The di st ric t co ur t de ferr ed ru li ng on th e m ot io n

un ti l aft er th e jury ret ur ne d i ts ve rd ic t, at whi ch ti m e it de ni ed th e m ot io n as ba rred

by jud ic ia l es to pp el

. Arce al so m ov ed fo r a n e w t ria l, arg ui ng th at th e jury

in st ru ct io ns were er ro ne ou s, an d t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t ha t m ot io n a s wel l.

Arce ap pe al s, arg ui ng t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng he r ci vi l

co ns pi racy an d in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m s, an d in de nyin g he r

m ot io ns for jud gm en t as a m at te r of law an d a ne w tri al

. 2

Geico’ s Complaint fra

mes the decla

ratory relief it seeks differ ently than the Pretrial Orde r. 1 Be cause a P retria l Orde r supercede s the pl ea d ings, State Treasurer of State of Michigan v. Barry
, 168 F.3d 8, 9- 10 (11th Cir. 1999), we r ecount only the re lief soug ht in the Pretrial Orde r.

Al t houg h the jury ’s verdic t appea rs to addre ss only Arc e and Be aufor d’s counter claims, 2 judgme nt was enter ed as to all the claims in this case , and so this court’s jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The decla ratory judgme nt duty -to-def end claim was in the Pretrial Orde r, (R.282
at 1, R.5-277 at 1), e vidence rele vant to it was introduced, (R.12-421 at 293-94, R.13-422 at 116),

2Arce arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng he r ci vi l co ns pi racy an d

in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m s on th e gr ou nd th at th ey were ba rred

by Flo rid a’s eco no m ic lo ss rul e.

Und er Fl or id a la w, a pl ai nt iff in co nt ract ua l pr iv it y w i t h a de fen da nt can no t

reco ve r in to rt fo r so le ly eco no m ic da m ag es ari si ng ou t of th e br each of th e co nt ract

.

In de mni ty In s. Co

. of N. Am. v. Am. Avia ti on , In c. , 89 1 So

. 2d 53 2, 53 6- 37 (Fl a.

2 0 04 ). Alt ho ug h Fl or id a la w do es pe rm it to rt act io ns ba se d on act s “ in de p e n d e n t

fro m th e act s th at br each ed th e co nt ract ,” HTP, Lt d. v. Li ne as Aere as Co st ar ri cen se s,

S.A.
, 68 5 So

. 2d 12 38
, 12 39 (Fl a. 19 96 ), th e ci vi l co ns pi racy an d in te nt io na l in fli ct io n

of em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m s are ba se d up on th e sa m e fact ua l pr ed ic at e as th e ba d fai th

cl ai m ari si ng ou t of Arce’s in su r a n c e po li cy wit h Geic o, an d ev en in co rp or at e th e 3

sa m e fact ua l al le ga ti on s b y refer en ce. (R.3 -1 73 at 6 , 8, 1 3.) Acc or di ng ly, we

the jury was instructed as to it, (R.20-428 at 20-21), and there was no objection to the specia l verdic t form submitt ed to the jury (R.19-432 at 320). When a specia l ve rdict form is use d which does not submit all issues in the trial to the jury
, no objection is made, and the judge makes no finding s as to those issues, the court “is considere d to have made a finding consistent with i t s judgme nt on the specia l verdic t.” Fe d. R. Civ. P

. 4 9 (a) (3). Acc ording ly
, we consider that finding s rele vant to the decla ratory judgme nt action wer e made in favor of Geico, the party for whom judgme nt was enter ed, and construe the judgme nt enter ed in favor of Geico to include its decla ratory judgme nt action. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol.
, 516 F.3d 955, 973 n.39 (11th Cir. 2008) (final judgme nt

can e ncompass cla ims not ex plicitly stated in the judg ment).

The district court even denied Geico’ s motion in limine to exclude evidenc e rela ting to any 3 al l ege d ci v i l conspirac y on the g round that any such evidenc e was also rele vant to the bad faith claim. (R.7-360 a t 2.)

3co nc lu de th at th e ci vi l co ns pi racy an d in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of e mo t i o na l di st res s

cl ai m s are bo th ba rred by Fl or id a’s eco no m ic lo ss ru le
, as th ey se ek to reco ve r fo r a

pu rel y eco no m ic lo ss whi ch al le ge dl y oc cu rred as th e res ul t of act io ns Geic o to ok in

br each o f i t s du ti es ari si ng fro m th e in su ran ce po li cy

. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y

di sm is se d th e ci vi l co ns pi racy an d in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m s.

Arce ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n i n de nyin g he r

m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. Sp eci fic al ly, Arce arg ue s th at it was an ab us e of di sc ret io n fo r

th e co ur t n o t to gi ve th e jury in st ru ct io ns sh e req ue st ed

. A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s

di sc ret io n in refu s in g to gi ve a req ue st ed jury in st ru ct io n “ if (1 ) th e req ue st ed

i n st ru ct io n co rrec tl y st at ed th e la w, (2 ) th e in st ru ct io n de al t wit h an is su e p r o p e r l y

be fo re th e jury, an d (3 ) th e fai lu re to gi ve th e in st ru ct io n res ul te d in pr ejud ic ia l ha rm

to th e req ue st in g par ty.” Rob er ts & Sc ha ef er Co . v. Har da wa

y Co

. , 15 2 F.3d 12 83
,

12 95 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Arce arg ue s, an d Geic o do es no t refu te , th at

th e in st ru ct io ns Arce requ es te d cor rect ly st at ed th e la w an d dea lt wit h is su es be fo re

th e jury. The di sp ut e is whe th er th e fai lu re to gi ve th e in st ru ct io ns r e s u l t ed in an y

p reju di ci al ha rm to Arce. W e co nc lu de th at th ere was no pr ejud ic ia l ha rm b e c a u s e

th e di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns to t h e jury im pa rte d th e sa m e in fo rm at io n as th e

req ue st ed jury in st ru ct io ns

.

4Fi rs t, Arce req ue st ed th e fo ll owi ng jury in st ru ct io n, whi ch th e pa rti es cal l th e

Pow el l in st ru ct io n:

Any q ue st io n ab ou t th e p os si bl e o ut co m e o f a se tt le m en t effo rt sh ou ld be res ol ve d in fav or of th e in su red ; th e in su rer ha s th e bu rd en to sh ow

no t on ly th at th ere was no real is ti c po ss ib il it y of se tt le m en t wit hi n po li cy li m it s, bu t al so th at th e in su red was wi th ou t t he ab il it y to co nt rib ut e to wha te ve r se tt le m en t fi gu re t ha t t he pa rti es co ul d h av e rea ch ed

. (R. 7- 39 9 at 2.) Arce cou ld no t hav e su ffer ed an y pr ejud ic ia l ha rm fro m th e di st ric t

co ur t’s refu sa l to gi ve th e jury th is in st ru ct io n, as th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y in st ru ct ed

th e jury on th e sa m e po in ts of la w. Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury

th at , “ If th e pr oo f fai ls to es ta bl is h an y es se nt ia l part of th e cl ai m or a co nt en ti on by

a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce, y ou sh ou ld fin d ag ai ns t th e pa rty m ak in g th e cl ai m

or co nt en ti on .” (R.2 0- 42 8 at 19 .) Acco rd in gl y , th e jury was to ld th at Geic o bo re th e

bu rd en of provi ng it s co nt en ti on s reg ard in g th e fu ti li ty of se tt le m en t ne go ti at io ns , an d

th at an y fai lu re t o p ro ve it s co nt en ti on s s ho ul d b e co ns tru ed in fav or of Arc e.

Seco nd , Ar ce req ue st e d t h e f o ll owi ng jury in st ru ct io n, whi ch th e pa rti es cal l

th e Berg es in st ru ct io n, “ The fo cu s in a ba d fai th cas e is no t on th e act io ns of th e

cl ai m an t bu t rat he r on th os e of th e in su rer in fu lfi ll in g it s ob li ga ti on s to th e in su red .”

(R.7 -3 99 at 2.) B u t t h e d is tri ct co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns to th e jury were cl ear th at th e

fo cu s of th e ba d fai th cl ai m is on th e act io ns o f th e in su rer. Fo r ex am pl e, th e

in st ru ct io ns st at ed :

5An in su ran ce co m pa ny act s in ba d fai th in fai li ng to se tt le a cl ai m whe n, un de r al l th e ci rcu m st an ces , it co ul d an d sh ou ld ha ve do ne so , ha d it act ed fai rly an d ho ne st ly to ward it s i n s u r e d an d wit h du e reg ard fo r he r in te res ts

.

The in su rer m

us t co nd uc t se tt le m en t ne go ti at io ns in go od fai th to th e in te res ts of th e in su red whe rev er th os e in te res ts m ig ht be di ve rg en t fro m th e in te res ts of t he in su ran ce co m pa ny.

W he n t he in su red ha s su rren de red to th e in su rer a ll co nt ro l o ve r th e ha nd li ng of th e cl ai m , in cl ud in g al l de ci si on s wit h r e g a r d to li ti ga ti on an d se tt le m en t, th en th e in su rer m us t as su m e a du ty to ex erci se

su ch co nt ro l an d m ak e su ch de ci si on s in go od fai th an d wit h du e reg ard fo r th e in te res ts of t he in su red

.

* * *

An in su rer, in ha nd li ng th e de fen se of cl ai m s ag ai ns t it s in su red
, ha s a du ty to us e th e sa m e de gr ee of care an d di li ge nc e as a pe rs on of

o rd in ary care an d pr ud en ce sh ou ld ex erci se in th e m an ag em en t o f h i s

own bu si ne ss

. (R.2 0- 42 8 at 20 -2 1.) The in st ru ct io ns gi ve n to th e jury ad eq ua te ly co nv ey ed to juro rs

th at th ey sh ou ld fo cu s on Geic o’s act io ns , an d no t th e in su red ’s, in ren de rin g a ve rd ic t

o n t h e b a d fai th cl ai m

. Acco rd in gl y , th ere was no pr ejud ic e in th e di st ric t co ur t’s

refu sa l to gi ve th e req ue st ed Berg es in st ru ct i o n

. Th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed

Arce’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.

Fi na ll y , Arce arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g he r Ru le 5 0( a)

m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on Geic o’s cl ai m se ek in g a de cl arat io n th at

it ha d no fu rth er du ty to de fen d (“ du ty-to -d efen d cl ai m ”). Alt ho ug h Arce’s arg um en t

6th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in co nc lu di ng th at Arce was jud ic ic al ly

es to pp ed to br in g th e m ot io n m ay ha ve so m e m eri t, we no ne th el es s affi rm th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n, as it was co rrec t fo r a di ffer en t reas on

. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. $1 21 ,10 0 in U.S. Cu rr en cy , 99 9 F.2 d 15 03
, 15 07 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 93 ) (n ot in g ap pe ll at e

co ur t can affi rm fo r an y reas on su pp or te d by th e reco rd ). Geic o so ug ht a “ de cl arat io n

th at it ha s no fu rth er du ty to de fen d Arce fro m th e cl ai m s of Bea uf or d.” (R.5 -2 77 at

1.) The tri al was fil le d wit h ev id en ce reg ard in g th e sc op e of Geic o’s du ty to de fen d

Arce, an d whe th er it ha d fu lfi ll ed th at du ty. Bec au se th ere was ev id en ce in tro du ced

at tri al to su pp or t Geic o’s du ty-to -d efen d cl ai m , Arce was no t en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as

a m at te r of la w on it

. Se e Cl evel an d v. Home Sh op pi ng Net wo rk

, In c. , 36 9 F.3 d 11 89
,

1 1 9 2

- 9 3 ( 1 1 t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (A pa rty is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on a

cl ai m on ly whe n th ere is “ no le ga ll y su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary b a s i s fo r a reas on ab le

jury” t o fin d fo r th e ot he r pa rty o n th at cl ai m .). The re was no erro r in t he de ni al of

Arce’s Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n.

In co nc lu si on , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y di sm is se d Arce’s ci vi l co ns pi racy an d

in te nt io na l in fli ct io n of em ot io na l di st res s cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n in refu si ng to gi ve th e req ue st ed jury in st ru ct io ns

. And
, be cau se Arce was

no t en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on Geic o’s du ty-to -d efen d cl ai m , th ere was

7no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of he r Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n. A c c or di ng ly, th e

jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

AFFIR MED.

8