Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-85

____________

SUZANNE HARVEY, etc.,

Petitioner,

vs.

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondent.

September 20, 2018

QUINCE, J.

This case involves the application of the law of bad faith, which imposes a 

fiduciary obligation on an insurer to protect its insured from a judgment that 

exceeds the limits of the insured’s policy. The specific issue in this case is whether 

the Fourth District Court of Appeal misapplied this Court’s bad faith precedent and 

relied on inapplicable federal precedent when it reversed the judgment entered in 

favor of the insured after a jury found that the insurer acted in bad faith in failing to 

settle the claim. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 208 So. 3d 810, 812 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2017). The Fourth District concluded that “the evidence was insufficient as a 

matter of law to show that the insurer acted in bad faith,” and, “even if the 
- 2 -

insurer’s conduct were deficient, the insurer’s actions did not cause the excess 

judgment.” Id. We have jurisdiction based on the Fourth District’s misapplication 

of our bad faith precedent as set forth in Boston Old Colony Insurance Co. v.

Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980), and, more recently, in Berges v. Infinity 

Insurance Co., 896 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004).1 

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Fourth District erred in 

holding that the evidence was insufficient to show that the insurer acted in bad 

faith in failing to settle the insured’s claim. In reaching this erroneous conclusion, 

the Fourth District failed to properly apply the directed verdict standard and 

misapplied this Court’s precedent in Boston Old Colony and Berges, where we set 

forth the fiduciary duties of insurance companies toward their insurers. We also

conclude that the Fourth District misapplied our precedent when it stated that an 

insurer cannot be liable for bad faith “where the insured’s own actions or inactions

. . . at least in part” caused the excess judgment. Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 816. Not 

only did the Fourth District misapply our well-established bad faith precedent but

it relied, in part, on nonbinding federal cases that cannot be reconciled with our 

 

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; see also Cortez v. 

Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1087 (Fla. 2013) (stating that this Court’s 

conflict jurisdiction was properly invoked by the district court’s misapplication of 

a decision of this Court). 
- 3 -

clear precedent. Accordingly, we quash the Fourth District’s decision and remand 

with instructions to reinstate the final judgment. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Underlying Accident

On August 8, 2006, Petitioner James Harvey, the insured, was involved in an 

automobile accident with John Potts. Potts, who was 51 years old at the time of 

the accident, died from injuries sustained in the crash, leaving behind a wife and 

three children. Harvey’s vehicle was registered in both his name and his 

business’s name, and was covered under a $100,000 liability policy. The accident 

was reported to his insurer, Respondent GEICO, and the claim was assigned to 

Fran Korkus, a claims adjuster. 

The Claims Process

Two days after the accident, on August 10, GEICO resolved the liability 

issue adversely to Harvey. GEICO was aware that there was significant financial 

exposure to Harvey because Potts had died leaving multiple survivors and 

Harvey’s insurance coverage was only $100,000. On August 11, Korkus sent

Harvey a letter explaining that Potts’ claim could exceed his policy limits and that 

he had the right to hire his own attorney. 

Vivian Tejeda, a paralegal employed by the attorney representing Potts’ 

estate, called Korkus on August 14 and requested a statement from Harvey. Tejeda
- 4 -

explained that a recorded statement from Harvey was necessary to determine the 

extent of his assets, whether he had any additional insurance, and if he was in the 

course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Significantly, 

Korkus did not immediately communicate the request to Harvey, and, according to 

Tejeda, Korkus denied the request. 

Three days later, GEICO tendered the full amount of the policy limits to the 

estate’s attorney, Sean Domnick, along with a release and affidavit of coverage. In 

response, Domnick wrote a letter to Korkus, acknowledging receipt of the check 

and Korkus’s refusal to make Harvey available for a statement. Korkus received 

this letter on August 31 and faxed it to Harvey, who learned for the first time that a 

statement had been requested.

That same day, Korkus contacted Domnick regarding the requested 

statement. After the conversation, Domnick faxed a letter confirming the scope of 

the conversation:

This confirms our conversation in which you told me that you had 

received our recent letter regarding this matter. You asked me why we 

wanted a statement from Mr. Harvey. I told you that it was for the 

same reason that Ms. Tejeda outlined previously as well as that 

referenced in my recent letter. We want to determine what other 

coverage or assets may be available to cover this incident. You were 

unable to confirm that he would be available for a statement. 

(Emphasis added.) Korkus did not respond to the letter.
- 5 -

The next day, September 1, Harvey called Korkus to discuss Domnick’s 

letter. Harvey told Korkus that he planned to meet with his attorney, whom he had 

hired at Korkus’s suggestion, to review his financial documents and provide the 

information requested, but advised Korkus that his attorney would not be available 

until September 5. Korkus documented the call in the following activity log entry:

Received call from insured. He received the fax. Said his company 

attorney Pat Geraghty is not available until Tuesday after the holiday 

weekend. Insured does not want claimant attorney to think we are not 

acting fast enough and asked what we can do to let the claimant’s 

attorney know we are working on this. I told insured that we will 

discuss letter with management and get back to him. Insured 

requested I fax him a copy of any response before it’s sent. 

(Emphasis added.) Korkus’s supervisor specifically instructed Korkus to relay 

Harvey’s message to Domnick. Korkus did not. 

On September 13, 2006, approximately one month after Tejeda’s initial 

request for a statement, the estate returned GEICO’s check and filed a wrongful 

death suit against Harvey. The wrongful death action was tried before a jury that 

found Harvey 100% at fault and awarded the estate $8.47 million in damages. A 

judgment in favor of the estate was entered against Harvey for the full amount of 

damages.

Harvey’s Bad Faith Action

Harvey filed a bad faith claim against GEICO based on the judgment that 

exceeded his policy limits of $100,000. At the trial on Harvey’s bad faith claim,
- 6 -

Domnick, the lawyer for the estate, testified that he did not receive any 

communication from GEICO following his August 31 letter. He also testified that 

had he known that Harvey’s only other asset was a business account worth 

approximately $85,000, he would not have filed suit and would have instead 

advised the estate to accept the policy limits. Korkus, the insurance adjuster,

conceded during her testimony that it was reasonable for Domnick to request 

information about whether Harvey had other insurance coverage and the extent of 

his assets, testifying that plaintiff’s attorneys asked for that information “all the 

time.” GEICO’s expert, John Atkinson, also testified that Domnick needed that 

information to properly advise the estate regarding settlement. Tracey Potts, wife 

of the decedent, testified that if Domnick had recommended that she settle, she 

would have followed his advice and accepted the policy limits offered by GEICO. 

Daniel Doucette, an expert in bad faith, testified that a serious claim such as 

this one would require “a sense of urgency” on behalf of the insurer. He stated that 

it would have been in Harvey’s best interests for Korkus to inform Domnick that 

he had retained an attorney, as this would have facilitated the recorded statement. 

Doucette also explained that because GEICO was handling the claim, Harvey 

could not contact Domnick directly. Instead, Harvey had to use Korkus as “a gobetween given his duty to cooperate with his insurer.” 
- 7 -

In addition to this expert testimony, Harvey presented evidence which 

showed that Korkus had a history of struggling to manage her files. At the time of 

Harvey’s claim, Korkus was handling approximately 130 claims. Her personnel 

file showed that she had trouble managing her claims properly, which included 

communication failures. In a performance appraisal from 2005, a year before 

Harvey’s accident, a performance review indicated that “[her] productivity 

numbers fell below average . . . there is now exposure to our insured and to GEICO 

for extra contractual damage . . . [and she] could use help with her organizational 

skills, filtering her emails, along with organizing her desk.” A year later, another 

performance review stated that Korkus “has struggled throughout the year with 

desk management, which is magnified in her low file quality rating.” 

At the conclusion of Harvey’s case, GEICO moved for directed verdict, 

which the trial court denied. In a special verdict, the jury found that GEICO acted 

in bad faith and the trial court entered judgment in favor of Harvey in the amount 

of $9.2 million. GEICO’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was 

denied. 

GEICO appealed, arguing that Harvey “offered insufficient evidence at trial 

to support his bad faith claim.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 814. The Fourth District 

agreed and reversed, concluding that “the evidence was insufficient as a matter of 

law to show [GEICO] acted in bad faith” in failing to settle the claim against 
- 8 -

Harvey. Id. at 816. The Fourth District further concluded that “even if the 

insurer’s conduct were deficient, the insurer’s actions did not cause the excess 

judgment rendered against the insured.” Id. at 812.

ANALYSIS

Harvey argues that the Fourth District’s decision was erroneous for two 

reasons. First, Harvey asserts that the Fourth District erred in granting a directed 

verdict in favor of GEICO on his bad faith claim because he presented sufficient 

evidence to support his claim. Second, Harvey contends that the Fourth District 

erred in concluding that an insurer cannot be found liable when the insured’s own 

conduct “at least in part,” results in an excess judgment. Id. at 816. Because this 

case involves an order entered on a motion for directed verdict our review is de 

novo. Christensen v. Bowen, 140 So. 3d 498, 501 (Fla. 2014). “When reviewing a 

trial court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict, this Court views the evidence 

and all inferences of fact in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. 

We begin by explaining the bad faith law of this state, as set forth by this 

Court first in Boston Old Colony, and more recently in Berges. We then turn to 

this case, where we first address the Fourth District’s conclusion that the evidence 

is insufficient to support the jury’s finding that GEICO acted in bad faith in failing 

to settle the estate’s claim against Harvey. We then address the Fourth District’s 
- 9 -

conclusion that an insurer cannot be found liable for bad faith where the excess 

judgment was caused in part by the insured. 

I. Bad Faith

We have explained that “[b]ad faith law was designed to protect insureds 

who have paid their premiums and who have fulfilled their contractual obligations 

by cooperating fully with the insurer in the resolution of claims.” Berges, 896 So. 

2d at 682. Thus, “[b]ad faith jurisprudence merely holds insurers accountable for 

failing to fulfill their obligations, and our decision does not change this basic 

premise.” Id. at 683.

Almost four decades ago, we explained the law of bad faith and the good 

faith duty insurers owe to their insureds in handling their claims, which still holds 

true today. See Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785. We explained that “in 

handling the defense of claims against its insured,” the insurer “has a duty to use 

the same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care and prudence 

should exercise in the management of his own business.” Id. This duty arises 

from the nature of the insurer’s role in handling the claim on the insured’s behalf—

because the insured “has surrendered to the insurer all control over the handling of 

the claim, including all decisions with regard to litigation and settlement, then the 

insurer must assume a duty to exercise such control and make such decisions in 
- 10 -

good faith and with due regard for the interests of the insured.” Id. We explained 

in great detail what this duty requires of insurers:

This good faith duty obligates the insurer to advise the insured of 

settlement opportunities, to advise as to the probable outcome of the 

litigation, to warn of the possibility of an excess judgment, and to 

advise the insured of any steps he might take to avoid same. The 

insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to a 

settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts, and settle, if 

possible, where a reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect 

of paying the total recovery, would do so. Because the duty of good 

faith involves diligence and care in the investigation and evaluation of 

the claim against the insured, negligence is relevant to the question of 

good faith.

Id. (citations omitted). 

We reaffirmed this duty insurers owe to their insureds in Berges, stating that 

the insurer “owe[s] a fiduciary duty to act in [the insured’s] best interests.” 896 

So. 2d at 677. Indeed, “this is what the insured expects when paying premiums.” 

Id. at 683.

The obligations set forth in Boston Old Colony are not a mere checklist. An 

insurer is not absolved of liability simply because it advises its insured of 

settlement opportunities, the probable outcome of the litigation, and the possibility 

of an excess judgment. Rather, the critical inquiry in a bad faith is whether the 

insurer diligently, and with the same haste and precision as if it were in the 

insured’s shoes, worked on the insured’s behalf to avoid an excess judgment. 
- 11 -

“[T]he question of whether an insurer has acted in bad faith in handling claims 

against the insured is determined under the ‘totality of the circumstances’

standard.” Id. at 680. Further, it is for the jury to decide whether the insurer failed 

to “act in good faith with due regard for the interests of the insured.” Boston Old 

Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785. This Court will not reverse a jury’s finding of bad faith 

where it is supported by competent, substantial evidence, as “it is not the function 

of [the appellate court] to substitute its judgment for the trier of fact.” Berges, 896 

So. 2d at 680.

In a case “[w]here liability is clear, and injuries so serious that a judgment in 

excess of the policy limits is likely, an insurer has an affirmative duty to initiate 

settlement negotiations.” Powell v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 

12, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In such a case, where “[t]he financial exposure to [the 

insured] [i]s a ticking financial time bomb” and “[s]uit c[an] be filed at any time,” 

any “delay in making an offer under the circumstances of this case even where 

there was no assurance that the claim could be settled could be viewed by a fact 

finder as evidence of bad faith.” Goheagan v. Am. Vehicle Ins. Co., 107 So. 3d 

433, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785).

The damages claimed by an insured in a bad faith case “must be caused by 

the insurer’s bad faith.” Perera v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 35 So. 3d 893, 902

(Fla. 2010). However, “the focus in a bad faith case is not on the actions of the 
- 12 -

claimant but rather on those of the insurer in fulfilling its obligations to the 

insured.” Berges, 896 So. 2d at 677. 

Federal case law interpreting our bad faith precedent does not always hit the 

mark. For example, in this case, the Fourth District relied in part on Novoa v. 

GEICO Indemnity Co., 542 F. App’x 794 (11th Cir. 2013), which was not selected 

for publication in the Federal Reporter. In that case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals stated that “[t]o fulfill the duty of good faith, an insurer does not have to 

act perfectly, prudently, or even reasonably. Rather, insurers must ‘refrain from 

acting solely on the basis of their own interests in settlement.’ ” Id. at 796 (quoting 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55, 58 (Fla. 1995)). Though 

the Eleventh Circuit cherry-picked a single clause from this Court’s opinion 

Laforet in which we addressed the narrow issue of the validity “of retroactively 

applying a penalty to insurance companies for bad faith conduct in failing to settle 

uninsured motorist claims,” 658 So. 2d at 56, it failed to consider our opinion in 

Boston Old Colony, where we made clear that there is far more to the bad faith 

inquiry than whether the insurer acted in its own interest. 

Indeed, in Boston Old Colony, we stated in no uncertain terms that an 

insurer “has a duty to use the same degree of care and diligence as a person of 

ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his own 

business.” 386 So. 2d at 785. We explained that this duty obligated an insurer “to 
- 13 -

exercise such control” over the handling of the claim “and make such decisions in 

good faith and with due regard for the interests of the insured.” Id. Additionally, 

not only is an insurer required to refrain from acting in its own interests in handling 

the claim, but it must also act with “care and diligence.” Id. Thus, the Eleventh 

Circuit’s contention that an insurer need not act prudently or even reasonably also 

misconstrues our well-established bad faith precedent. 

As we discuss below, the Fourth District went astray, in part, by relying on 

this federal case, in lieu of this Court’s precedent, to reverse the judgment entered 

in favor of Harvey. We now turn to this case. 

II. This Case

Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that there was 

competent, substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that GEICO acted in 

bad faith in failing to settle the estate’s claim against Harvey. In concluding 

otherwise, the Fourth District (1) failed to properly apply the directed verdict 

standard; and (2) misapplied this Court’s precedent in Boston Old Colony and 

Berges. We also conclude that the Fourth District misstated the law when it stated 

that an insurer cannot be liable for bad faith “where the insured’s own actions or 

inactions result, at least in part, in an excess judgment.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 

816. Nothing in our precedent can be read to suggest that an insurer cannot be 

found liable for bad faith merely because the insured could have attempted on his 
- 14 -

own to avoid the excess judgment. In fact, our precedent states just the opposite, 

as it is the insurer who owes a fiduciary obligation to the insured “to exercise such 

control and make such decisions in good faith and with due regard for the interests 

of the insured.” Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785.

We first address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding 

of bad faith.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

In a bad faith case, the evidence must be viewed in the context of the 

circumstances of each particular case. See Berges, 896 So. 2d at 680 (stating that 

each bad faith case “is determined on its own facts”). In this case, viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to Harvey, GEICO’s independent investigation 

of the facts revealed, within days after the accident, that this was a case of clear 

liability and substantial damages, and a jury verdict could exceed the insured’s 

$100,000 policy limit. Not only did GEICO know that Harvey was at fault for the 

accident, but it knew that John Potts, a husband and father of three children, died 

as a result. In other words, this was a case of catastrophic damages.

As the evidence reveals, however, GEICO failed to act as if the financial 

exposure to Harvey was a “ticking financial time bomb.” Goheagan, 107 So. 3d at 

439. The evidence shows that GEICO completely dropped the ball and failed to 

fulfill its obligation to Harvey to “use the same degree of care and diligence as a 
- 15 -

person of ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his 

own business.” Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785. Instead of doing 

everything possible to facilitate settlement negotiations, GEICO’S claims adjuster, 

Korkus, was a considerable impediment to both Harvey and the estate. When 

Domnick, the estate’s attorney, requested a statement from Harvey, Korkus refused 

the request, despite acknowledging that such statements were standard practice. 

Additionally, not only did Korkus refuse the request, but she did not inform 

Harvey of the request until two weeks later, when Korkus received a letter from 

Domnick stating that the request had been denied. Even when Harvey informed 

Korkus that he intended to meet with his attorney to compile the information 

necessary for the statement, Korkus did not relay this information to Domnick. In 

fact, Korkus wholly failed to communicate with Domnick at all after receiving his 

letter. 

The significance of Korkus’s failure to inform the estate that Harvey 

intended to provide a statement cannot be overstated, as Domnick testified that had 

he known that Harvey planned to give a statement, “he would have recommended 

delaying the filing of the wrongful death suit.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 813. 

Further, the estate’s personal representative testified that “she would have followed 

her attorney’s advice and would have declined to file the lawsuit.” Id. at 813-14. 

Thus, had GEICO acted “with due regard” for Harvey’s interests, the excess 
- 16 -

judgment could have been prevented. Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785. 

There can be no doubt that had GEICO been faced with paying the entire multimillion-dollar judgment returned by the jury in this case, an amount that was 

completely foreseeable given the clear liability and catastrophic damages, it would 

have done everything possible to comply with the estate’s reasonable demands. 

Accordingly, we conclude that there was competent, substantial evidence to 

support the jury’s finding that GEICO acted in bad faith in failing to settle the 

estate’s claim against Harvey. In concluding otherwise, the Fourth District failed 

to properly apply the directed verdict standard that all evidence be viewed in the 

light most favorable to Harvey, as the nonmoving party. 

In addition to the Fourth District’s failure to properly apply the directed 

verdict standard, it relied on a nonbinding decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of 

Appeals, which cannot be reconciled with this Court’s bad faith jurisprudence. See 

Novoa, 542 F. App’x 794. As a result, the Fourth District misapplied this Court’s 

precedent in Boston Old Colony and Berges.

Relying on the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Novoa, the Fourth District 

acknowledged that “GEICO could have acted more efficiently in handling the 

insured’s claim.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 816. The Fourth District concluded, 

however, that the evidence “merely show[ed] that GEICO could have perhaps 

‘improved its claims process,’ not that it acted in bad faith.” Id. (quoting Novoa, 
- 17 -

542 F. App’x at 796). The Fourth District stated further that, “even if GEICO’s 

actions were negligent, negligence alone is insufficient to prove bad faith.” Id. 

While it is true that negligence is not the standard, we made clear in Boston Old 

Colony that “[b]ecause the duty of good faith involves diligence and care in the 

investigation and evaluation of the claim against the insured, negligence is relevant

to the question of good faith.” 386 So. 2d at 785 (emphasis added). By relying on 

this opinion from the Eleventh Circuit in lieu of this Court’s binding precedent in 

Boston Old Colony, the Fourth District minimized the seriousness of the insurer’s 

duty to act in good faith with due regard for the interests of its insured.2 

Instead of taking seriously what the duty of good faith requires of insurers as 

set forth in Boston Old Colony, the Fourth District appeared to treat the obligations 

an insurer owes to its insured as a checklist; so long as a checkmark appeared next 

to each item, bad faith may not be found. Indeed, the Fourth District noted that 

GEICO notified Harvey of settlement opportunities, advised him of the possibility 

of an excess judgment, and recommended that he retain his own attorney. Harvey, 

 

2. Regarding the Fourth District’s reliance on federal case law, it has been 

observed that the “[t]o the extent that the federal cases permit summary judgment 

based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 . . . they are of limited precedential 

value in Florida summary judgment cases” because Florida places a higher burden 

on a party moving for summary judgment in state court. Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 

948 So. 2d 921, 923-24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
- 18 -

208 So. 3d at 815. Thus, the Fourth District concluded that GEICO “fulfilled 

every obligation” it owed Harvey. Id. 

Significantly absent from the Fourth District’s analysis, however, is whether 

GEICO “use[d] the same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care 

and prudence should exercise in the management of his own business.” Boston 

Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785. Indeed, had the Fourth District conducted a careful 

analysis of this question, it would not have concluded as a matter of law that 

GEICO acted “in good faith with due regard for the interests” of Harvey when 

Korkus failed to inform the estate’s attorney that Harvey was working on a 

financial statement even after both Harvey and Korkus’s supervisor specifically 

asked Korkus to do so. Id.

In addition to concluding that GEICO fulfilled its obligations to Harvey, the 

Fourth District also found significant that GEICO “tendered the policy limits, 

unconditionally, nine days after the accident.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 816. Indeed, 

when considering the circumstances in this case, offering the $100,000 policy 

limits when GEICO knew that the estate demanded a statement from Harvey as to 

any additional assets that he might own was not only perfectly reasonable but 

critical to a prompt resolution. However, nothing in either Boston Old Colony or 

Berges can be read to suggest that an insurer’s obligations end by tendering the 

policy limits. To the contrary, the insurer’s duty to act in good faith “in handling 
- 19 -

the defense of claims against its insured” continues through the duration of the 

claims process. Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785.

The Fourth District further misapplied our precedent when it blamed Harvey 

for the estate’s decision to return GEICO’s check and file suit, reasoning that 

Harvey “never provided a statement to the estate despite having the assistance of 

legal counsel for several days before suit was eventually filed.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d 

at 816. As we stated in Berges, “the focus in a bad faith case is not on the actions 

of the claimant but rather on those of the insurer in fulfilling its obligations to the 

insured.” 896 So. 2d at 677. This is because, as the insured, Harvey “surrendered 

to the insurer all control over the handling of the claim.” Boston Old Colony, 386 

So. 2d at 785. Indeed, as Harvey’s bad faith expert testified, because GEICO was 

handling the claim, Harvey could not contact the estate’s attorney directly, but had 

to use Korkus as “a go-between.” The Fourth District, thus, misapplied our 

precedent when it blamed Harvey for failing to do more to avoid the excess 

judgment.

In concluding the evidence was insufficient to show that GEICO acted in 

bad faith in failing to settle the estate’s claim against Harvey, the Fourth District 

did not properly apply the directed verdict standard and misapplied this Court’s 

well-established bad faith precedent by relying on erroneous federal precedent. 

Had the Fourth District properly applied the directed verdict standard and faithfully 
- 20 -

adhered to this Court’s precedent, the only result would have been to uphold the 

jury’s verdict for Harvey, because the totality of the circumstances support the 

jury’s finding that GEICO acted in bad faith in handling the defense of claims 

against Harvey. 

We now turn to the Fourth District’s statement that an insurer cannot be 

found liable for bad faith where the excess judgment was caused in part by the 

insured.

B. Causation

In the decision below, the Fourth District stated that “where the insured’s 

own actions or inactions result, at least in part, in an excess judgment, the insurer 

cannot be liable for bad faith.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 816. We conclude that this 

statement misapplies our precedent in Berges, where we stated that “the focus in a 

bad faith case is not on the actions of the claimant but rather on those of the insurer 

in fulfilling its obligations to the insured.” Berges, 896 So. 2d at 677. 

After holding that the evidence was insufficient to show that GEICO acted 

in bad faith, the Fourth District went on to conclude the that “[e]ven assuming that 

GEICO handled [Harvey’s] claim improperly, [Harvey] failed to establish that 

GEICO’s conduct caused the excess judgment.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 816. In 

reaching this conclusion, the Fourth District, again relying on federal cases, stated 

that “where the insured’s own actions or inactions result, at least in part, in an 
- 21 -

excess judgment, the insurer cannot be liable for bad faith.” Id. (citing Barnard v. 

GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 448 F. App’x 940, 944 (11th Cir. 2011); Novoa, 542 F. 

App’x at 796-97). This statement is fundamentally inconsistent with this Court’s 

precedent, which could not be clearer in stating that “the focus in a bad faith case is 

not on the actions of the claimant but rather on those of the insurer in fulfilling its 

obligations to the insured.” Berges, 896 So. 2d at 677. 

While this Court has stated that “there must be a causal connection between 

the damages claimed and the insurer’s bad faith,” Perera, 35 So. 3d at 902, this 

Court has never held or even suggested that an insured’s actions can let the insurer 

off the hook when the evidence clearly establishes that the insurer acted in bad 

faith in handling the insured’s claim. In fact, the standard jury instructions on legal 

cause in a bad faith case belies the Fourth District’s conclusion that where the 

insured’s own actions, even “in part” cause the judgment, the insurer cannot be 

found liable for bad faith. Indeed, the standard legal cause instruction states:

Bad faith conduct is a legal cause of [loss] [damage] [or] [harm] 

if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or 

contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [damage] [or] 

[harm], so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the bad faith 

conduct, the [loss] [damage] [or] [harm]would not have occurred.
- 22 -

Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 404.6(a). Nowhere in this instruction does it state that 

an insurer can escape liability merely because the insured’s actions could have 

contributed to the excess judgment.

3

To take the Fourth District’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, an insurer 

could argue that regardless of what evidence may be presented in support of the 

insured’s bad faith claim against the insurer, so long as the insurer can put forth 

any evidence that the insured acted imperfectly during the claims process, the 

insurer could be absolved of bad faith. As Harvey argues, this would essentially 

create a contributory negligence defense for insurers in bad faith cases where 

concurring and intervening causes are not at issue. We decline to create such a 

defense that is so inconsistent with our well-established bad faith jurisprudence

 

3. In this case, Harvey argued in favor of including the standard legal cause 

instruction in the jury’s instructions. However, GEICO argued against its 

inclusion, explaining that it was simply arguing that “it did not act in bad faith 

because the case could not have been settled. Acting fairly and honestly, we did 

everything we could and we acted in good faith.” Accordingly, the only 

substantive instruction on bad faith law given to the jury was:

Bad faith on the part of an insurance company is failing to settle a 

claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have 

done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with 

due regard for his interests.

The Legal Cause Standard Jury Instruction includes additional optional 

instructions on concurring cause and intervening cause. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.)

404.6(b)-(c). However, GEICO specifically requested that those instructions, also, 

not be given to the jury in this case. 
- 23 -

which places the focus on the actions on the insurer—not the insured. Berges, 896 

So. 2d at 677.

CONCLUSION

An insured pays its insurance premiums with the expectation that the insurer 

will “act in good faith in the investigation, handling, and settling of claims brought 

against the insured.” Berges, 896 So. 2d at 683. In this case, a jury found that 

GEICO acted in bad faith by failing to settle the estate’s claim against Harvey. 

Substituting its own judgment for that of the jury, the Fourth District erroneously 

concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show that GEICO acted in bad faith 

and that, even if it did, GEICO’s actions did not cause the excess judgment against 

Harvey. 

In reaching these erroneous conclusions, the Fourth District failed to 

properly apply the directed verdict standard and misapplied this Court’s wellestablished bad faith precedent. For all the reasons stated, we quash the Fourth 

District’s decision, and direct that on remand, the jury verdict and final judgment 

be reinstated.

It is so ordered. 

PARIENTE, LEWIS, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.

CANADY, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which POLSTON and LAWSON, JJ., 

concur.

POLSTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which CANADY, C.J., and LAWSON, 

J., concur.
- 24 -

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

CANADY, C.J., dissenting.

The Fourth District’s decision in GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Harvey, 

208 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), does not expressly and directly conflict with 

this Court’s decisions in Boston Old Colony Insurance Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 

783 (Fla. 1980), or Berges v. Infinity Insurance Co., 896 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004), 

“on the same question of law.” Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Because this Court 

lacks jurisdiction, I dissent from the majority’s failure to discharge this case. 

Indeed, the only conflict here is between the majority’s decision and the 

prior precedents of this Court. Under a proper reading of Boston Old Colony and 

Berges, the Fourth District’s decision should be approved. The evidence here, 

when viewed in the light most favorable to the insured, James Harvey, is legally 

insufficient to support a verdict against Harvey’s automobile insurer, GEICO, for 

bad faith failure to settle the third party’s claim within Harvey’s $100,000 policy 

limits. GEICO—who tendered the policy limits within days of the fatal accident 

and stood ready and willing to settle—should not be liable for the $8,470,000 of 

damages caused by Harvey. In reinstating this punitive, extracontractual award, 

the majority mischaracterizes certain relevant facts, relies on certain unsupported 

assumptions, and misreads our case law as standing for the proposition that an 

insured’s own actions are irrelevant in any bad faith action. 
- 25 -

The majority paints the picture that Harvey only had $85,000 of assets, that 

he agreed to provide his financial information to the estate’s attorney, and that the 

wrongful death suit against Harvey would have settled for the $100,000 policy 

limits if only GEICO had informed the estate’s attorney that Harvey was working 

on providing the information. The record reveals that Harvey and his wife had 

assets well in excess of $1 million, Harvey was already discussing his coverage 

and assets with potential legal counsel on the day of the accident, Harvey provided 

his asset information to his personal attorney three weeks before suit was filed, 

Harvey and his attorney knew of the estate’s attorney’s request for information, 

and Harvey never once offered to provide the information. It is not that the Fourth 

District erroneously “blamed Harvey for failing to do more to avoid the excess 

judgment.” Majority op. at 19. Rather, it is that Harvey and his attorney—not 

GEICO—controlled the only relevant decision that needed to be made. 

Although GEICO’s claims agent handled the claim less than perfectly, 

negligent claims handling does not equate to bad faith. Campbell v. Gov’t 

Employees Ins. Co., 306 So. 2d 525, 530 (Fla. 1974). The majority’s decision to 

reinstate the jury verdict muddies the waters between negligence and bad faith and 

bolsters “contrived bad faith claims.” Berges, 896 So. 2d at 686 (Wells, J., 

dissenting). Indeed, the estate’s attorney was permitted to testify that GEICO was 

in bad faith a mere six days after the accident. I thus echo Justice Wells’ 
- 26 -

dissenting view in Berges that it is not “acceptable for the Court to merely say that 

bad faith is a jury question.” Id. This Court should set forth “logical, objective” 

rules for bad faith. Id. And it should not sanction the award of “limitless 

insurance,” id., in a case in which the insurer tendered the policy limits, the third 

party never made any time-limited demand or presented any settlement offer of its 

own, and the only relevant decision to be made was within the insured’s control. 

I. Jurisdiction

The majority’s determination of jurisdiction appears to be based on the 

conclusion that Harvey misapplied Boston Old Colony as merely setting forth a 

bad faith “checklist,” majority op. at 17, and that Harvey misapplied Berges by 

considering Harvey’s “own actions or inactions,” majority op. at 2 (quoting 

Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 816). But the majority’s finding of misapplication conflict is 

grounded in the majority’s misreading of our case law.

Boston Old Colony

In Boston Old Colony, the injured third party sued the insured’s automobile 

insurer for bad faith failure to settle the third party’s claim within the insured’s 

$10,000 policy limits. Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 784-85. Of relevance, the 

investigating officer concluded that the insured caused the collision, the third 

party’s injuries “were extensive,” the third party actually offered to settle for the 

insured’s $10,000 policy limits, and the insurance company recommended that the 
- 27 -

insured settle the case, but the insured requested that the insurance company not 

settle due to the insured’s pending counterclaim. Id. at 784. The insurance 

company ultimately chose to not settle and went so far as to obtain a “hold 

harmless” agreement from the insured. Id. After the parties settled the insured’s 

counterclaim, the insurance company offered the $10,000 policy limits in 

settlement of the third party’s claim, but the third party opted to proceed to trial 

and obtained a judgment against the insured in the amount of $1,400,000. Id. The 

third party then sued the insurance company for bad faith, alleging failure to settle 

“when [the insurance company] had the opportunity.” Id. at 784-85. The third 

party prevailed in a jury trial and obtained a judgment against the insurance 

company in the amount of $1,400,000. Id. at 785.

On appeal, the insurance company argued that the trial court erred in 

denying its motion for directed verdict. The Third District rejected that argument, 

“holding that there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could base a verdict 

of bad faith failure to settle.” Id.

On review, this Court quashed the Third District’s decision. Id. at 786. 

Despite noting that the question of bad faith “is for the jury,” this Court concluded 

that no “reasonable jury” could have reached a verdict of bad faith failure to settle. 

Id. at 785. In doing so, this Court described the insurer’s duty of good faith in 
- 28 -

general terms before laying out certain specific obligations an insurer is required to 

fulfill in the context of injuries caused by its insured to a third party: 

This good faith duty obligates the insurer to advise the insured of 

settlement opportunities, to advise as to the probable outcome of the 

litigation, to warn of the possibility of an excess judgment, and to 

advise the insured of any steps he might take to avoid same. The 

insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to a 

settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts, and settle, if 

possible, where a reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect 

of paying the total recovery, would do so.

Id. (citation omitted). This Court then concluded that the evidence demonstrated 

that the insurance company “fulfilled all these obligations.” Id.

In justifying its decision, this Court specifically noted the relevance of the 

insured’s own actions. Id. at 785-86. The Court recounted that the insured “at all 

times contested liability,” requested the insurer “not to settle the claim because he 

was pursuing a counterclaim against [the] plaintiff,” and “executed a ‘hold 

harmless’ agreement . . . assum[ing] responsibility for any excess judgment.” Id. 

This Court did so despite earlier explaining that the insurance company has “all 

control over the handling of the claim, including all decisions with regard to 

litigation and settlement,” and that the insurance company has a duty to “settle, if 

possible, where a reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect of paying the 

total recovery, would do so.” Id. at 785. This Court ultimately determined that the 

failure to settle was “because of the explicit request of its own insured.” Id. at 786. 

This Court also noted the relevance of the third party’s own actions, namely the 
- 29 -

third party’s “refus[al] to settle when the insurer subsequently offered to settle 

prior to trial.” Id. 

Harvey does not expressly and directly conflict with Boston Old Colony on 

any question of law. Harvey recognized the controlling relevance of Boston Old 

Colony, examined the facts in light of the obligations set forth in Boston Old 

Colony, and concluded that, even though GEICO could have handled the claim 

better, the evidence showed that GEICO fulfilled the Boston Old Colony

obligations. Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 814-15. In Boston Old Colony, we held that the 

insurer’s motion for directed verdict should have been granted because the 

evidence showed that the insurer “fulfilled all these obligations” and stood “ready” 

and “willing[] to settle” for the policy limits. Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 

785-86. The district court in Harvey reached the very same conclusion.

Berges

The majority’s asserted basis for misapplication conflict with Berges rests 

squarely on the majority’s disagreement with the Fourth District’s decision to 

consider Harvey’s own actions. Even assuming that the complained-of analysis in 

Harvey is not dicta, there is no express and direct conflict.

The majority repeatedly cites the following language from Berges: “the 

focus in a bad faith case is not on the actions of the claimant but rather on those of 

the insurer in fulfilling its obligations to the insured.” E.g., majority op. at 21
- 30 -

(quoting Berges, 896 So. 2d at 677). The majority interprets this language as 

standing for the proposition that the sole focus in any action for bad faith failure to 

settle must be on the insurer’s actions—to the exclusion of all else. But the 

majority overlooks that Berges cited Boston Old Colony as support for that very 

language. See Berges, 896 So. 2d at 677. As just explained, Boston Old Colony

itself specifically noted the relevance of the insured’s own actions, as well as those 

of the third-party claimant. Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785-86. And the 

Berges Court emphasized that it was not departing from Boston Old Colony: “we 

have not attempted to alter bad faith jurisprudence.” Berges, 896 So. 2d at 682. 

Harvey thus stayed well within the bounds of our precedent by focusing on 

GEICO’s conduct while also considering, for example, that “the estate never 

provided any deadline or other timeframe within which th[e] statement was to be 

provided,” or that “despite the insured knowing the estate wanted a statement, 

neither the insured nor his attorney took any further action to provide the estate 

with a statement.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 813. 

II. The Majority’s Substantive Decision

The result of the majority’s decision is that an insured who caused damages 

that exceeded his policy limits by over 8,000 percent, who had assets that greatly 

exceeded his policy limits, and who at no time ever offered to provide his financial 

information to the third-party claimant despite knowing that the information was 
- 31 -

being requested even after the policy limits were tendered, has his $100,000 policy 

converted into an $8.47 million policy, while other insurance customers eventually 

foot the bill. Our case law does not support this result.

Because the majority asserts that the Fourth District failed to view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to Harvey, see majority op. at 16, and because 

the majority glosses over critical aspects of the record, I first review the timeline of 

events. Ultimately, the only disputed events of any potential relevance occurred on 

two days—August 14 and 31, 2006. But even viewing those events in the light 

most favorable to Harvey, GEICO should be entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.

The Proceedings Below

On August 8, 2006, James Harvey, who was insured by GEICO for 

$100,000 and whose vehicle was registered in his name and his business’s name, 

caused the accident that resulted in the death of John Potts. GEICO’s adjuster, 

Fran Korkus, promptly interviewed Harvey. On this same day, Harvey called a 

local attorney and discussed his insurance coverage and assets.4 Although Harvey 

did not hire this attorney, Harvey was obviously concerned about his exposure to a 

lawsuit. After all, he and his wife had well over $1 million in assets.

 

4. It appears that the local attorney with whom Harvey spoke worked for the 

same law firm that Mrs. Potts ended up hiring in the suit brought against Harvey.
- 32 -

On August 11, Korkus spoke with Harvey and sent him a letter explaining 

his policy limits, advising him of the possibility of excess exposure, and advising 

him of his right to retain his own attorney to protect his rights regarding excess 

exposure. Later this same day, Harvey retained a personal attorney—the attorney 

for Harvey’s business. 

On August 14, Vivian Tejada, a paralegal for the law firm retained by Mrs. 

Potts, called Korkus. Korkus’s notes reveal that Tejada advised Korkus of the law 

firm’s involvement in the case and that a letter of representation would be 

forthcoming. The remaining events surrounding this call are in dispute. Viewing 

the disputed facts in the light most favorable to Harvey, it should be assumed that 

Korkus declined “at this time” Tejada’s request to make Harvey available for a 

statement that would include his asset information. However, it is also undisputed 

that Tejada never gave a deadline or informed Korkus that the statement was a 

prerequisite to settling the claim.

Within one hour of her call with Tejada, Korkus called Harvey. Korkus’s 

contemporaneous notes indicate that she “updated [Harvey] on claim status” and 

informed him about the specific law firm retained by Mrs. Potts. The remaining 

events surrounding this call are in dispute. Accepting Harvey’s “best of my 

recollection” testimony, it should be assumed that Korkus did not mention that 

Tejada had asked about other insurance coverage and Harvey’s assets. 
- 33 -

Three days later, on August 17, it is undisputed that Harvey gathered all of 

his asset information and set up a meeting with his attorney to take place on 

August 23 in Fort Myers. Interestingly, when asked at trial about the stack of 

documents related to his finances that he provided to his attorney, Harvey 

explained: “I had collected up anything that I thought might be relevant to any 

question that might be asked and having no idea what is meant by a statement, nor 

what was being asked for or anything else, decided that it’s much better to provide 

more information than less information.” (Emphasis added.) Harvey later testified 

that GEICO’s August 11 excess-exposure letter was the sole reason why he set up 

the meeting with his attorney. In any event, Harvey’s actions leave little doubt that 

he remained worried about his financial exposure.

Also on August 17, GEICO unconditionally tendered the $100,000 policy 

limits, along with an affidavit of coverage and a proposed release. GEICO’s 

activity log contains multiple entries indicating that GEICO had to first contact the 

estate’s law firm because the law firm had not yet provided GEICO with a letter of 

representation confirming the law firm’s involvement in the case. 

On August 23, Harvey took his financial information and met with his 

attorney. Testimony revealed that Harvey owned certain liquid assets exceeding 

$900,000, plus four motor vehicles and two houses. The estate’s attorney testified 

that in his view, the only asset available to the estate as “collectible” was $85,000 
- 34 -

in the operating account of Harvey’s business. The estate’s attorney also testified 

that he would have recommended settling the case for the $100,000 policy limits 

had Harvey’s asset information been provided, and Mrs. Potts testified that she 

would have deferred to the estate’s attorney.

On August 31, Korkus received a letter with the estate’s attorney’s response 

to GEICO’s tender of policy limits. In this letter dated August 24, the estate’s 

attorney stated that he “will discuss [GEICO’s offer] with my client” while noting 

that Korkus had “declined” Tejada’s “offer” on August 14 that Harvey be made 

available for a statement. Korkus forwarded a copy to Harvey, spoke with Harvey, 

and, at Harvey’s request, forwarded a copy to Harvey’s attorney. Korkus also 

forwarded a copy to Tim Holleran, a GEICO home office attorney. On Holleran’s 

advice, Korkus contacted the estate’s attorney to obtain more information

regarding the requested statement. The events surrounding Korkus’s call with the 

estate’s attorney are also in dispute. Korkus’s notes specifically reflect that she 

“advised [the estate’s attorney] I will contact [Harvey]” and pass the information 

along “so he can decide.” The estate’s attorney testified that Korkus never 

indicated she was going to forward the information to Harvey. 

Even accepting the estate’s attorney’s testimony over Korkus’s specific and 

contemporaneous notes, it is undisputed that Korkus called Harvey shortly after 

she spoke with the estate’s attorney. Korkus’s notes from her call with Harvey 
- 35 -

reflect that she “advised [Harvey] of my conversation [with the estate’s attorney] 

& what info [the estate’s attorney] wants to cover in a statement.” Korkus also 

documented that Harvey was going to discuss the statement request with his 

personal attorney. The accuracy of Korkus’s notes from her call with Harvey are 

not in dispute. 

Later that same evening of August 31, the estate’s attorney faxed a letter to 

Korkus memorializing their conversation from earlier in the day. In this second 

letter, he reiterated their interest in obtaining information from Harvey while 

noting that Korkus was “unable to confirm” Harvey’s availability. Nothing in this 

letter suggests that Korkus refused to make Harvey available, that any time-limited 

demand was made, or that any conditions were imposed under which a settlement 

within the policy limits would be effectuated. 

On Friday, September 1, Korkus discussed the second letter with Harvey and 

sent him a sample form for providing some of the requested information. Harvey 

informed Korkus that his attorney was not available until after the holiday 

weekend and that he wanted to speak to his attorney about whether to provide a 

statement. Harvey also expressed concern about the two letters and did not want 

the estate’s attorney to think they were “not acting fast enough.” Rather, he 

wanted the estate’s attorney to know that they were “working on this.” GEICO’s 

home office attorney also recommended that Korkus follow up with the estate’s 
- 36 -

attorney regarding her conversation with Harvey. For unexplained reasons, 

Korkus did not do so. 

On September 11, the estate’s attorney discussed bad faith law with Mrs. 

Potts and recommended that she file suit against Harvey. Indeed, the estate’s 

attorney later testified at the bad faith trial that GEICO was in bad faith on August 

14—a mere six days after the accident. And yet on August 14, it appears the law 

firm had not even provided GEICO with a letter of representation. 

Finally, on September 13, the wrongful death suit was filed against Harvey, 

eventually resulting in an $8.47 million judgment against him and leading to 

Harvey’s suit against GEICO for bad faith failure to settle. During the bad faith 

trial, the jury heard that among other things: (1) Mr. Potts had been killed; (2) the 

estate obtained a judgment against Harvey for $8.47 million; (3) Harvey only had 

$100,000 of insurance coverage and purportedly only had collectible assets of 

$85,000; and (4) if a verdict of bad faith was rendered against GEICO, the $8.47 

million judgment against Harvey would be satisfied, with all of the money going to 

the estate. It was also revealed that in the nine years from the day of the accident, 

Harvey had never once offered to provide a statement of his assets, and the estate 

had not attempted to collect a single penny from Harvey.
- 37 -

The Law of Bad Faith

In the context of claims for third-party injuries caused by an insured, this 

Court in Boston Old Colony described an insurer’s duty to its insured as a general 

“duty to use the same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care and 

prudence should exercise in the management of his own business.” Boston Old 

Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785. This Court then laid out certain specific obligations an 

insurer is required to fulfill:

This good faith duty obligates the insurer to advise the insured of 

settlement opportunities, to advise as to the probable outcome of the 

litigation, to warn of the possibility of an excess judgment, and to 

advise the insured of any steps he might take to avoid same. The 

insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to a 

settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts, and settle, if 

possible, where a reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect 

of paying the total recovery, would do so.

Id. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). More recently, this Court in Berges

described an insurer’s duty to its insured as a “fiduciary obligation to protect its 

insured from a judgment exceeding the limits of the insurance policy.” Berges, 

896 So. 2d at 668. Although Boston Old Colony did not refer to such a “fiduciary 

obligation,” Berges makes clear that it was attempting to follow the principles set 

forth in Boston Old Colony and was “not attempt[ing] to alter bad faith 

jurisprudence.” Id. at 682. Thus, nothing in this Court’s case law suggests that 

Boston Old Colony is no longer good law. 
- 38 -

As explained above, Boston Old Colony concluded—as a matter of law—

that the insurance company could not be liable for bad faith failure to settle, even 

though the insurance company refused an offer to settle for the insured’s $10,000 

policy limits, and the extensively injured third party later obtained a judgment 

against the insured for $1,400,000. Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785. We did 

so because the insurance company “fulfilled all [of its] obligations” of 

investigating, advising, and warning, and was “ready” and “willing[] to settle” for 

the policy limits. Id. at 785-86. We also noted the relevance of the actions of both 

the insured and the third party. Id.

In a well-reasoned decision, the Fourth District in Harvey explained why 

GEICO satisfied all of its obligations under Boston Old Colony and should have 

similarly been entitled to a directed verdict. The majority here understandably 

does not take issue with the Fourth District’s analysis of the specific Boston Old 

Colony obligations. Indeed, it cannot reasonably be said that GEICO failed to 

satisfy any of those obligations. GEICO “investigate[d] the facts,” advised Harvey 

“as to the probable outcome of the litigation,” warned Harvey “of the possibility of 

an excess judgment,” and advised Harvey of “steps he might take to avoid same.” 

Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785. Those steps included advising Harvey of 

his right to retain a personal attorney to protect his rights regarding excess 

exposure and later advising Harvey that the estate was requesting a statement, 
- 39 -

while explaining to Harvey what was being requested. The decision as to whether 

to provide the statement, of course, was Harvey’s to make, not GEICO’s. After all, 

an insurer has no duty to undertake a legal analysis of its insured’s financial 

position. Finally, it cannot be said that GEICO failed “to initiate settlement 

negotiations” in this case “[w]here liability [was] clear,” the injuries were fatal, 

and “a judgment in excess of the policy limits” was not only “likely” but virtually 

inevitable. Powell v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 1991). Indeed, it is undisputed that GEICO made the one and only 

settlement offer in this case. That alone should decide this particular case as a 

matter of law. See Novoa v. GEICO Indem. Co., 542 F. App’x 794, 796 (11th Cir. 

2013) (“[W]e find it hard to imagine how [the insurer] acted in bad faith when it 

offered to pay everything it possibly could under the policy.”).

Rather than take issue with the Fourth District’s analysis of the specific 

Boston Old Colony obligations, the majority points to the Fourth District’s 

purported failure to focus on the more general language in Boston Old Colony

regarding an insurer’s duty to use “the same degree of care and diligence as a 

person of ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his 

own business.” E.g., majority op. at 18 (quoting Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 

785). In doing so, the majority completely divorces that general language from the 

specifically enumerated obligations and effectively adopts a negligence standard 
- 40 -

for bad faith actions, even though negligent claims handling does not amount to 

bad faith failure to settle. See Campbell, 306 So. 2d at 530 (noting that the 

“standard[] for determining liability in an excess judgment case is bad faith rather 

than negligence”); see also Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Shaw, 184 So. 852, 858 (Fla. 

1938) (noting that bad faith involves “a heavier burden upon the insured” than does 

negligence). Indeed, under the majority’s misreading of Boston Old Colony, the 

jury in that case should have been permitted to decide whether “a person of 

ordinary care and prudence” would have similarly refused the offer from the 

injured third party to settle for the insured’s meager $10,000 policy limits. But this 

Court decided Boston Old Colony as a matter of law because the insurance 

company fulfilled its specific obligations and stood ready and willing to settle, 

notwithstanding that a settlement was never consummated. The point is, there 

must be a bad faith failure to settle within the policy limits, not just a “dropp[ing 

of] the ball,” majority op. at 14, at some point during the claims process.

The majority compounds its misreading of Boston Old Colony by 

misreading and unduly emphasizing the following language from Berges: “the 

focus in a bad faith case is not on the actions of the claimant but rather on those of 

the insurer in fulfilling its obligations to the insured.” E.g., majority op. at 19 

(quoting Berges, 896 So. 2d at 677). The majority interprets this language as 

standing for the unsupportable proposition that the actions of the insured and the 
- 41 -

third-party claimant are irrelevant in any suit for bad faith failure to settle. But 

Berges cited Boston Old Colony as support for that “focus” language. Berges, 896 

So. 2d at 677. And Boston Old Colony clearly considered the insured’s own 

actions, as well as those of the third-party claimant. Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 

2d at 785-86. Indeed, the specific obligations enumerated in Boston Old Colony

themselves contemplate the relevance of the insured’s actions. Id. at 785 

(explaining that the insurer has a duty “to warn of the possibility of an excess 

judgment, and to advise the insured of any steps he might take to avoid same” 

(emphasis added)). Neither Boston Old Colony nor Berges require (or permit) 

ignoring the actions of Harvey and the estate.

As it relates to Harvey, the uncontroverted evidence shows that: (1) Harvey 

and his attorney knew that the estate was requesting certain information from 

Harvey even after the policy limits were tendered; (2) Harvey provided the 

necessary information to his attorney three weeks before suit was filed; and (3) at 

no time—before or after suit was filed—did Harvey or his attorney offer to provide 

the information. Indeed, “neither [Harvey] nor his attorney took any further action 

to provide the estate with a statement.” Harvey, 208 So. 3d at 813. The majority’s 

inattention to these salient facts is wholly unwarranted. 

The estate’s conduct is also relevant to explaining why GEICO should 

prevail as a matter of law. For example, just as the third-party claimant did in 
- 42 -

Boston Old Colony, the estate here “refused to settle” for the offered policy 

limits. See Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 786. Moreover, unlike the thirdparty claimant in Berges, the estate here never once presented “a valid opportunity 

to settle.” Berges, 896 So. 2d at 675. Despite testifying nine years after the fact 

that he would have recommended settlement if Harvey had disclosed his asset 

information, the estate’s attorney never once demanded the information, imposed 

any deadline, or presented any conditions under which a settlement would be 

effectuated within the policy limits. In other words, the estate never indicated it 

would accept the policy limits and forego pursuing a judgment if Harvey’s 

immediately “collectible” assets were less than $100,000. In the end, GEICO 

presented the one and only settlement opportunity in this case.

Turning a blind eye to the wildly speculative nature of this bad faith claim, 

the majority not only ignores the conduct of Harvey and the estate but also relies 

on unsupported assumptions. For example, the majority notes that statement 

requests from plaintiffs’ attorneys are “standard practice.” Majority op. at 15. 

From there, the majority comfortably assumes that insureds routinely agree to such 

requests. See majority op. at 16 (noting that GEICO should “have done everything 

possible to comply with the estate’s reasonable demands”). But there is nothing in 

the record indicating that insureds—let alone insureds who cause catastrophic 

damages far exceeding their policy limits and whose assets far exceed those same 
- 43 -

policy limits—routinely provide their financial information to and sit for recorded 

interviews conducted by plaintiffs’ attorneys. Indeed, Harvey’s own actions 

expose the unreasonableness of the majority’s assumption.

By adopting a negligence standard in all but name, ignoring the controlling 

conduct of the insured and the third-party claimant, and relying on unsupported 

assumptions, the majority incentivizes a rush to the courthouse steps by third-party 

claimants whenever they see what they think is an opportunity to convert an 

insured’s inadequate policy limits into a limitless policy. But under a proper 

reading of our bad faith jurisprudence, GEICO is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. Any shortcoming on the part of GEICO in this case amounts to negligent 

claims handling, at most. GEICO promptly tendered the policy limits, the estate 

never made any demand—time-limited or otherwise—or presented any concrete 

conditions under which it would agree to settle for the policy limits, and Harvey 

never once offered to provide the supposedly critical personal information despite 

having that information available and knowing that it had been requested. 

III. Conclusion

The majority’s determination of jurisdiction rests on the majority’s own 

misreading of our case law. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, I would 

discharge this case. The Fourth District correctly decided to reverse the trial 

court’s denial of GEICO’s motion for directed verdict. Viewing the facts in the 
- 44 -

light most favorable to the insured, no reasonable jury could reach a verdict of bad 

faith failure to settle within policy limits in this case. Finding bad faith in the 

circumstances presented here works a vast and unwarranted expansion of liability 

for bad faith claims. In Florida law, mere negligence has now become bad faith. I 

strongly dissent from this unjustified change in the law.

POLSTON and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

POLSTON, J., dissenting.

Because the Fourth District’s decision in Geico General Insurance Co. v. 

Harvey, 208 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), does not expressly and directly 

conflict with this Court’s decisions in Boston Old Colony Insurance Co. v. 

Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980), and Berges v. Infinity Insurance Co., 896 

So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004), this Court does not have the constitutional authority to 

review this case. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

In Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 784, this Court answered a certified 

question regarding whether our case law “authorize[d] a bad faith action against an 

insurance company when that company has refused to settle a claim at the express 

direction of its own insured who obtain[ed] a settlement of his claim and the 

insurance company thereafter offer[ed] to settle for its policy limits before trial.” 

“Although we [held that our precedent] may, in some circumstances, authorize 

such a suit, we [found] the evidence in [Boston Old Colony] legally insufficient to 
- 45 -

show bad faith . . . .” Id. Boston Old Colony had argued “that its motion for a 

directed verdict should have been granted” given the lack of evidence of bad faith. 

Id. at 785. 

In reaching our decision in Boston Old Colony, this Court set forth the 

obligations of good faith that an insurer owes to its insured:

An insurer, in handling the defense of claims against its insured, has a 

duty to use the same degree of care and diligence as a person of 

ordinary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his 

own business. For when the insured has surrendered to the insurer all 

control over the handling of the claim, including all decisions with 

regard to litigation and settlement, then the insurer must assume a 

duty to exercise such control and make such decisions in good faith 

and with due regard for the interests of the insured. This good faith 

duty obligates the insurer to advise the insured of settlement 

opportunities, to advise as to the probable outcome of the litigation, to 

warn of the possibility of an excess judgment, and to advise the 

insured of any steps he might take to avoid same. The insurer must 

investigate the facts, give fair consideration to a settlement offer that 

is not unreasonable under the facts, and settle, if possible, where a 

reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospects of paying the 

total recovery, would do so.

386 So. 2d at 785 (citations omitted). This Court stated that the evidence 

demonstrated that Boston Old Colony had fulfilled these enumerated obligations; 

therefore, there was “no sufficient evidence” of bad faith, and Boston Old 

Colony’s motion for directed verdict should have been granted. Id. at 785-86.

The Fourth District conducted nearly an identical analysis in Harvey. First, 

it quoted the above, block-quoted language from this Court’s decision in Boston 
- 46 -

Old Colony. Then, the Fourth District explained how the evidence demonstrated 

that GEICO had fulfilled the obligations of good faith listed in Boston Old Colony:

(1) GEICO was obligated to “advise the insured of settlement 

opportunities.” Although GEICO did not immediately inform the 

insured that the estate wanted a statement, the evidence showed that 

GEICO notified the insured on August 31 that the estate wanted the 

insured’s statement. Significantly, the estate did not inform GEICO 

that a full settlement of its claim against the insured was contingent 

upon providing a statement. Thus, GEICO fulfilled this obligation.

(2) GEICO was required to “advise as to the probable outcome 

of the litigation,” and (3) “warn of the possibility of an excess 

judgment.” Here, the record reflects that GEICO promptly warned the 

insured as to the possibility of an excess judgment. Thus, GEICO 

satisfied these obligations as well.

(4) GEICO was also obligated to “advise the insured of any 

steps he might take to avoid” an excess judgment. The record also 

shows that GEICO did this too, and recommended that the insured 

retain his own attorney, which he did, and, as stated above, informed 

the insured that the estate wanted a statement.

(5) GEICO was further obligated to “investigate the facts.” 

Nothing in the record indicates GEICO was deficient in this regard.

(6) GEICO could not have given “fair consideration to a 

settlement offer” because the evidence was undisputed that the estate 

never made a settlement offer.

(7) Finally, GEICO was required to “settle, if possible, where a 

reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect of paying the total 

recovery, would do so.” Here, GEICO attempted to settle with the 

estate nine days after the accident by tendering, without limitation or 

even a demand, the full policy limits to the estate’s attorney. Thus, 

the evidence showed that GEICO also fulfilled this final obligation.

Id. at 815. Accordingly, just as this Court in Boston Old Colony held after 

concluding that the evidence demonstrated that the insurer fulfilled its obligations 

of good faith, the Fourth District “conclude[d] that the trial court should have 
- 47 -

directed a verdict” in the insurer’s favor. Id. at 816. There is no conflict 

(misapplication or otherwise) between Boston Old Colony and Harvey.

Additionally, there is no conflict between the Fourth District’s decision in 

Harvey and this Court’s decision in Berges v. Infinity Insurance Co., 896 So. 2d 

665 (Fla. 2004). In Berges, 896 So. 2d at 668-69, this Court repeated the 

obligations outlined in Boston Old Colony, the same obligations of good faith 

applied by the Fourth District in Harvey. The results were different in Berges and 

Harvey because the facts were different. In Berges, 896 So. 2d at 670-71, the 

insurer failed to meet settlement deadlines and only notified the insured of the 

possibility of an excess judgment and the right to retain independent counsel after 

the deadlines passed. There was also expert testimony in Berges that the insurer 

“could have and should have been able to pay the policy limits within the time 

period.” Id. at 678. In contrast, in Harvey, GEICO did not fail to meet any 

settlement deadlines, and GEICO promptly notified the insured of the possibility of 

an excess judgment and the right to retain independent counsel 3 days after the 

accident. 208 So. 3d at 812. And 9 days after the accident, “GEICO sent the estate 

a release along with a check for the $100,000 policy limits even though the estate 

never demanded the policy limits.” Id. Furthermore, in Harvey, the Fourth 

District’s examination of GEICO’s conduct in fulfilling its obligations of good 

faith is entirely consistent with the language in Berges stating that the focus of a 
- 48 -

bad faith case is on the conduct of the insurer. The Fourth District’s comment in 

Harvey regarding the insured’s actions or inactions was dicta and only mentioned 

after Fourth District reached its holding that GEICO fulfilled its obligations of 

good faith to the insured. Therefore, because Harvey applied the same obligations 

of good faith listed in Berges to reach its holding but to different facts, there is no 

conflict. 

Accordingly, Harvey does not conflict with Boston Old Colony or Berges, 

and this Court does not have jurisdiction. I respectfully dissent.

CANADY, C.J., and LAWSON, J., concur.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Direct 

Conflict of Decisions 

Fourth District - Case No. 4D15-4724

(Palm Beach County)

Kimberly L. Boldt of Boldt Law Firm, P.A., Boca Raton, Florida; Fred 

Cunningham and Sean Domnick of Domnick Cunningham & Whalen, P.A., Palm 

Beach Gardens, Florida; and Philip M. Burlington, Bard D. Rockenbach, and 

Andrew A. Harris of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida,

for Petitioner

B. Richard Young, Adam A. Duke, and Cody S. Pflueger of Young, Bill, Boles, 

Palmer & Duke, P.A., Miami, Florida,

for Respondent

Louis K. Rosenbloum of Louis K. Rosenbloum, P.A., Pensacola, Florida,

for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Association
- 49 -

Stephen A. Marino, Jr., Benjamin C. Hassebrock, and Michal Meiler of Ver Ploeg 

& Lumpkin, P.A., Miami, Florida; and Mark A. Boyle, Molly Chafe Brockmeyer, 

and Meagan R. Cyrus of Boyle & Leonard, P.A., Fort Myers, Florida,

for Amicus Curiae United Policyholders

Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr., of Holland & Knight LLP, Miami, Florida; and William W. 

Large of Florida Justice Reform Institute, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Reform Institute

Christine Davis Graves and Sylvia H. Walbolt of Carlton Fields, Tallahassee, 

Florida,

for Amici Curiae American Insurance Association, National Association of 

Mutual Insurance Companies, Personal Insurance Federation of Florida, and 

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America