[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14854

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00191-WTM-GRS

ERICA N. MCKEEL,

Individually, 

ERICA N. MCKEEL, 

As Surviving Parent of Murphy Foster McKeel, 

Deceased, 

DANIEL CALEB MCKEEL, 

As Surviving Parent of Murphy Foster McKeel, 

Deceased, 

ASSIGNEES OF CUONG NGUYEN AND 

MINH NGUYEN, 

Individually,

d.b.a. Limelight Bar & Grill, LLC, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 23, 2015)

Case: 14-14854 Date Filed: 07/23/2015 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Before MARCUS, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

The Plaintiffs-Appellants in this appeal (the “McKeels”) -- assignees of 

Cuong Nguyen and Minh Nguyen, individually and d/b/a Limelight Bar & Grill 

LLC -- appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor 

of the Defendant-Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. 

The case arises out of a car accident in which Cuong Nguyen, driving a vehicle 

insured by State Farm, improperly struck a vehicle driven by Erica McKeel, who 

was seven-months’ pregnant. As a result of the accident, Ms. McKeel’s baby was 

born prematurely and, sadly, died from injuries sustained in the accident. 

In a subsequent state court case involving the McKeels, Limelight and 

Cuong Nguyen, the McKeels obtained a jury verdict against Cuong Nguyen in 

excess of $3,000,000. Following entry of judgment in that case, Cuong Nguyen 

and Minh Nguyen assigned their interest in any claim they might have had against 

State Farm to the McKeels. Based on that assignment, the McKeels filed this suit, 

alleging that State Farm acted in bad faith before and during the state court case by 

refusing to settle on Cuong Nguyen’s behalf within the policy limits. The district 

court granted summary judgment to State Farm, concluding that the McKeels had 

failed to identify any issue of material fact concerning their bad-faith claim. On 

appeal, the McKeels argue that the district court erred in granting summary 

Case: 14-14854 Date Filed: 07/23/2015 Page: 2 of 6 
3

judgment on their bad faith claim because State Farm: (1) negligently created a 

conflict of interest that injured Cuong Nguyen; (2) negligently failed to provide all 

material facts of the underlying situation to Cuong Nguyen; and (3) violated its 

own policies in the adjustment of the case. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, applying 

the same legal standard as the trial court. Watkins v. Ford Motor Co., 190 F.3d 

1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is proper 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Under Georgia law, “where a person injured by an insured offers to settle for 

a sum within the policy limits, and the insurer refuses the offer of settlement, the 

insurer may be liable to the insured to pay the verdict rendered against the insured 

even though the verdict exceeds the policy limit of liability.” McCall v. Allstate 

Ins. Co., 310 S.E.2d 513, 514 (Ga. 1984). We’ve said that, “[a]t a minimum, . . . 

Georgia law mandates that the insured show that settlement was possible -- the 

case could have been settled within the policy limits -- and that the insurer knew, 

or reasonably should have known, of this fact.” Delancy v. St. Paul Fire & Marine 

Ins. Co., 947 F.2d 1536, 1550 (11th Cir. 1991). The elements of a negligence 

claim in Georgia are “duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages.” Cotton States 

Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brightman, 568 S.E.2d 498, 500 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). An assignee 

Case: 14-14854 Date Filed: 07/23/2015 Page: 3 of 6 
4

under Georgia law “stands in the shoes” of the assignor and has no greater rights 

than the assignor possessed at the time of the assignment. See S. Telecom, Inc. v. 

TW Telecom, Inc. of Ga. LP, 741 S.E.2d 234, 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).

First, we are unpersuaded by the McKeels’ claim that State Farm acted in 

bad faith by negligently creating a conflict of interest that injured Cuong Nguyen. 

The undisputed record in this case reveals that before and during the state court 

proceedings, State Farm repeatedly offered the McKeels the policy limits 

($50,000.00 for Ms. McKeel’s personal injury claim and a separate $50,000.00 for 

the claim of her minor child) in exchange for limited releases of liability -- releases 

concerning Cuong Nguyen, Minh Nguyen, and Limelight, as insureds under the 

policy. The record also reveals that the McKeels rejected all offers that included 

Limelight as a releasee, and fails to show that State Farm knew, or reasonably 

should have known, that settlement was possible. Indeed, the McKeels offer no 

case law supporting the idea that State Farm should have abandoned one of its 

insureds (Limelight) by not including it as a releasee in the limited liability

releases. Instead, Georgia courts have said that “in this state each insured under 

the policy, whether a named insured or others, is entitled to be defended by the 

insurer and judgments against such insured paid, within the limits of the policy.” 

Strain Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Am. S. Ins. Co., 197 S.E.2d 498, 501 (Ga. Ct. App. 

1973) (emphasis added). Without any Georgia law to the contrary, we are hardCase: 14-14854 Date Filed: 07/23/2015 Page: 4 of 6 
5

pressed to conclude that State Farm could have acted in bad faith or negligently by

equally representing its insureds. See e.g., Shipes v. Hanover Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 

1357, 1361 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[B]ad faith means a frivolous and unfounded denial 

of liability. . . . Where questions of law . . . have not been decided by the courts of 

Georgia and are not of easy solution, then a finding of . . . bad faith . . . [is] not 

authorized.”) (quoting State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Harper, 188 S.E.2d 

813, 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)). Nor is there any basis for the McKeels’ reliance on 

attorney-client conflict-of-interest cases. The district court did not err in granting 

summary judgment on the McKeels’ conflict-of-interest claim.

We also are unpersuaded by the McKeels’ argument that State Farm 

negligently failed to provide all material facts of the underlying situation to Cuong 

Nguyen -- that is, that the McKeels were “willing to release him individually.” 

The McKeels’ claim is merely another way of arguing that State Farm should have 

abandoned Limelight by removing it from the release document. As we’ve 

explained above, this argument has no merit. In addition, as the undisputed record 

shows, counsel retained by State Farm to defend its insureds met with the 

purported owners of Limelight on several occasions to see if they would consent 

for Limelight to be removed from the release and they would not. There is nothing 

in the record to indicate that Cuong Nguyen’s knowledge of any additional 

material facts would have led to a different result, especially given the Limelight 

Case: 14-14854 Date Filed: 07/23/2015 Page: 5 of 6 
6

owners’ refusal to consent as well as Limelight’s alleged ownership issues. The 

district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this negligence claim. 

Finally, we reject the McKeels’ argument that State Farm violated its own 

policies in adjusting the claim. In Georgia, a corporation’s failure to abide by its 

own written guidelines is evidence of negligence. Luckie v. Piggly-Wiggly So., 

Inc., 325S.E.2d 844, 845 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). The McKeels rely on language in 

State Farm’s policy that gave it a duty to “diligently investigate the facts to 

determine if a claim is valid.” However, as we’ve detailed, the record reveals that 

State Farm began offering its entire policy limits before it received any demand 

from anyone for any amount. There is nothing in the record to indicate that State 

Farm was not diligent in investigating whether the insurance claim was valid, and 

the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this negligence 

claim. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-14854 Date Filed: 07/23/2015 Page: 6 of 6