FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 10 -1 22 26 ; 1 0- 14 23 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 6- cv -0 05 95 -SCB -TGW CLAYTON KE ARNEY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us AUTO-OW

NERS INSURANCE COM PANY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll Defen da nt- App el le e.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 7, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: The pl ai nt iff

-ap pe ll an t Cl ayto n Kea rn ey (“ Kearn ey ”) ap pe al s ce rta in di st ric t
co urt ru li ng s m ad e dur in g a ndaft er a t ria l, i n wh ic h t he jury fo un d t ha t thede fen da nt -ap pe ll ee Au to -Owne rs Ins ur an ce Co . (“ Aut o- Owner s” ) di d n oten ga ge

in ba d fa it h i n i ts ha nd li ng of Ke arn ey ’s in su ran ce cl ai m forun in su redm ot or is t (“ UM”) b en efi ts . Spe ci fic al ly, Kearn ey ass ert s re ve rs ib le erro r in th e v erd ic t fo rm us edan d ju ry

in st ru ct io ns gi ve n; th e co urt’s ru li ng s o n t he adm is si on of c ert ai n ex pe rt t es ti m on y ; an d the co urt’s re fu sa l t o awardKearn ey pre va il in g p arty

st atus . Fo ll owi ng a br ie f rec it at io n o f th e rel ev an t fa ct s, we ad dr es s ea ch is su e in tu rn . 1 I. Thi s l it ig at io n s te m s fr om a si ng le -caracci de ntin 20 02 , whi ch lef t Kea rn ey wit h s eri ou s i nju rie s af

fect in g h is em ot io na l an d c og ni ti ve fun ct io ni ng . At th e ti m e o f th e acc id en t, Kearne y was apa ss en ge r in a car d riv enby an u ni ns ur ed
m ot or is t, s o h e so ug htto reco ve r fro m hi s p ers on al UM co ve rag e. Thre e in su ran ce p ol ic ie s p ro vi de d c ov erag e fo r Kearn ey ’s acci de nt . Firs t, a
co m m erci al au to po li cy

is su edby the Zuri ch Am eri can Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny (“ Zuri ch ”) p ro vi de d c ov erag e fo r Kearn ey ’s fathe r’s co m pa ny’ s m ot orfle et . Afte r pr ol on ge d l it ig at io n b etweenKearn ey an d Zuric h, t hi s p ol ic y

pa idKearn ey $5 00 ,00 0 i n UM co ve rag e. Seco nd , an Au to -Owne rs Recr eat io na l Veh ic le Po li cy pr ov id edanad di ti on al $3 0,0 00 in UM co ve rag e. Thi rd , an Au to -Owne rs
Be cause the jury

ruled in favor of Auto- Owner s, we c onstrue the f acts in the light most 1 favor able to the jury ’s verdict. See Woodard v. F anboy , L .L .C. , 298 F.3d 1261, 1263 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 2“ Um

br el laPo li cy ” p ro vi de d $ 5 m il li on in UM co ve rag e fo r co st s i n e xc es s o f th e Zuri ch an d RV po li ci es . This ap pe al ad dr es se s t he way Aut o- Owner s h an dl ed Kearn ey ’s cla im s u nd er the Um br el laPo li cy . Bec au se th e Um

br el laPo li cy

pro vi de d e xc es s i ns ur an ce co ve rag e, Kearn ey fir stso ug htpa ym en ts un de r th e Zur ic h a ndRecr eat io na l Veh ic le Po li ci es . This pr ov edm or e d iff

ic ul t tha n e xp ect ed , ho wev er, b ecau se th e Zur ic h P ol ic y co nt ai ne d am is ta ke reg ard in g the ex te ntof i ts UM co ve rag e. Sp eci fic al ly, th e Zuri ch Po li cy

co ve red14 5 v eh ic le s i n t he Kearn ey m ot orfle etan d p ro vi de d $5 00 ,00 0 p er i nc id en ce fo r ea ch ve hi cl e. Altho ug h t he pa rti es in te nd ed —an d, pe rh ap s m or e im

po rtant ly, Kearn ey ’s fathe r pa idfor —“ no n- st ack in g” co ve rag e th atwou ldha ve li m it edKearn ey ’s reco ve ry to $5 00 ,00 0, t he po li cy

st at edon it s face th atitpro vi de d “ st ack in g” co ve rag e. Thu s, b as edso le ly on wh atwas co nt ai ne d wi th in th e fo urco rn ers of t he do cu m en t, the Zuri ch Po li cy pu rp orte d t o pr ov id e up t o $ 72 .5-mill io n wo rth of c ov erag e fo r a s in gl e in ci de ntto a si ng le
ve hi cl e (1 45 ve hi cl es at $ 50 0,0 00 each ). Ini ti al ly, Kearn ey fil edsu itag ai ns t Zuri ch see ki ng to en fo rce t hi s “ st ack in g” lan gu ag e inth e Zur ic h P ol ic y , bu t af te r ro ug hl y 18 m on th s o f m ed ia ti on an d p re-t ria l i nv es ti ga ti on th e p art ie s s et tl ed
. As pa rt o f th e se tt le m en t, the parti es ag reedth atth e Zur ic h P ol ic y was n on -s ta ck in g,

3an d Zu ric h p ai d t he ful l $ 50 0,0 00 owedun de r th e Zur ic h P ol ic y . Zuri ch als o p ai d

ro ug hl y $1 0- m il li on in da m ag es . Afte r th e Zur ic h l it ig at io n was res ol ve d, Kea rn ey so ug htto co ll ectfurth er pa ym en t fr om

Aut o- Owner s. Kearne y , th ro ug h h is att orne y , firs t wro te Aut o Owner s as se rti ng “ th atth e Aut o Own ers po li cy li m it s s ho ul d b e p ai d n ow.” Kearn ey ’s att orne y

arg ue d tha t the po li cy

li m it s s ho ul d b e p ai d b ecau se Kearn ey ’s lo stfutur e earni ng s s te m

m in g fr om

th e acc id en t wer e “ th e la rg es t [h e] ha[d ] ev er se en .” Aut o- Owner s re fu se d, que st io ni ng whet he r Kearn ey ’s cla im s ex ceed edth e $1 0.5 m il li on alr eady

pa idby Z ur ic h. Inres po ns e, on Nov em

be r 4, 2 00 5, Kea rn ey

fil eda ci vi l re m edy

no ti ce, whi chin it ia te d a60 -d ay

pe rio d i n wh ic h Au to -Owne rs co ul d p ay th e cl ai m s an d pr ev en t fu rth er l it ig at io n. Howev er, Kearne y di d n otpro vi de Aut o- Owner s wi th a co py of th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t wi th Zuri ch un ti l o nl y 11 da y s re m ai ne d i n t ha t 60 -d ay pe rio d. Aut o- Owner s re sp on de d t o the civ il rem edy no ti ce ar gu in g t ha t, in te r al ia , qu es ti on s re m ai ne d a s t o wh ethe r Zur ic h’s s et tl em en t fu ll y co m pe ns at ed Kearn ey , andwhet he r th e Zur ic h P ol ic y actua ll y pro vi de d s ta ck in g c ov erag e. Aut o- Owner s d idno t p ay Kearn ey ’s cla im s wi th in th e 6 0- da y pe rio d. Kearn ey th enbro ug htth is act io n. As th e d is tri ctco urt d es cri be d:

4On Feb ru ary 24 , 20 06 , Cl ayto n Kearn ey fil ed a la wsu it in st a te

co urt ag ai ns t Aut o- Owner s. The lawsu it co nt ai ne d fo ur co un ts . Co un ts I an d II al le ge d fai lu re to pa y in su ran ce be ne fit s un de r, res pe ct iv el y , th e $3 0,0 00 Rec reat io na l Veh ic le Po li cy a nd th e $5 -m il li on Exe cu ti ve Um br el la Po li cy . Co un ts III an d IV al le ge d ba d fai th hand li ng of Kearn ey ’s cl ai m s un de r th es e two po li ci es . Aut o- Owner s rem ov ed th e cas e to fed eral co urt o n Ap ril 7, 2 00 6. Bro ad ly sp eak in g, Aut o- Owner s’ de fen se co ns is te d o f f ou r arg um en ts . Fi rs t, Aut o- Owner s arg ue d th at be cau se [Zur ic h] ha d is su ed a pr im ary po li cy wit h st ack ed c o v e r a ge , Aut o- Owner s di d no t ha ve to pa y an ythi ng un de r i t s u mbrel la po li cy un le ss Kearn ey ’s da m ag es ex ce ed ed $72. 5- mil li on . Seco nd , Aut o- Owner s arg ue d th at any pa y m ent it ha d to m ak e un de r t h e [Um br el la Po li cy ] co ul d be reduc ed by th e am ou nt of th e se tt le m en t th at Kearn ey ha d ob ta in ed fro m Zuri ch to se tt le th e se pa rat e ba d fai th la wsu it in st at e co urt. Thi rd , Aut o- Owner s arg ue d th at Kearn ey ’s own ne gl ig en ce co nt rib ut ed to hi s in juri es be cau se he di d no t wear a se at be lt
. Fo urth , A ut o- Owner s di sp ut ed th e am ou nt of Kearn ey ’s da m ag es , whi ch Kearn ey ’s at to rn ey at on e po in t es ti m at ed at a “ m id ran ge ” o f ab ou t 1 0.5 -m il li on . Kearn ey v. Au to -Owne rs Ins . Co., No . 06 -cv -0 05 95 , 20 10 W L 32 59 70 2, at*2 (M.D. Fl a. Aug . 16 , 20 10 ). Befo re tria l, the pa rti es ag reedto di sm is s C ou nt s I a nd III wi thpre

jud ic e, aft er Au to -Owne rs pa idth e $ 30 ,00 0 o wedun de r th e Rec reat io na l Veh ic le Po li cy . On Au gu st7, 2 00 7, t he di st ric t co urt ad op te d t he Rep ort an d Rec omm en da ti on s o f th e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e, whi ch in rel ev an t p artco nc lu de d t ha t th e Zur ic h P ol ic y

was n on -s ta ck in g andth at , as ares ul t, the Um br el laPo li cy

to ok effe ctwhen Kearn ey ’s dam ag es ex ceed ed$5 30 ,00 0. Aut o- Owner s t he n

5un co nd it io na ll y pa idKearn ey

th e $ 5- m il li on co ve rag e li m itpro vi de d b y th e Um br el laPo li cy . Fo ll owi ng th is $5 -m il li on pa ym en t, Kearne y m ov edto reco ve r hi s at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts fro m Aut o- Owner s fo r li ti ga ti on effo rts to ob ta in th at pa ym en t. Kearn ey

arg ue d t ha t h e was en ti tl edto reco ve r al l fe es in cu rredaft er Apr il 28 , 20 05 , th e d at e o n wh ic h Kea rn ey ’s att orne y wrot e Aut o- Owner s an d st at ed“ [w]e bel ie ve th atth e Aut o- Owner s p ol ic y li m it s s ho ul d b e p ai d n ow.” Aut o- Owner s o pp os edth is m ot io n. The cas e p ro ceed edto tri al , whi ch was b ifu rcat edin to two st ag es : fi rs t, a de te rm in at io n o f Kearn ey ’s dam ag es , andsec on d, a d et erm in at io n o f whe th er Aut o- Owner s ac te d i n b adfai th in it s m an ag em en t o f Kearn ey ’s cla im . On Nov em be r 1, 2 00 7, fo urda y s p rio r to tri al , Kearn ey m ov edto vo lu nt ari ly dis m is s wit h p reju di ce Co un t II of t he Co m pl ai nt , whi ch so ug htpa ym en t o f th e $ 5- m il li on Um br el laPo li cy

li m it . The Co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n t o d is m is s C ou ntII, bu t d id
no t ru le on Kearn ey ’s m ot io n fo r fee s an d c os ts rel at edto th atco un t. A jury fir stco nc lu de d t ha t Kea rn ey su ffer edda m ag es of r ou gh ly $60
m il li on , whi ch th e co urt the n re du cedto $3 0 m il li on on acco un t o f Kearn ey ’s
co nt rib ut ory

ne gl ig en ce. Inth e se co ndpro ceed in g, the jury th enfou ndth atAut o6Owner s h adno t ac te d i n b adfai th
. As a re su lt , th e d is tri ctco urt en te redjud gm en t

in fav orof Au to -Owne rs . Afte r en te rin g ju dg m en t, i n aser ie s o f ru li ng s t he di stric t co urt d en ie d Kearn ey ’s reque stforfees un de r th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e rel at in g t o th e li ti ga ti on of C ou nt s I andII; gra nt edKearn ey ’s m ot io n fo r fee s u nd er pr ov is io ns of F lo rid a la w; an d a ward edcert ai n fe es an d c os ts to Aut o- Owner s pr em is edon th ei r st atus as the pre va il in g p arty to th e li ti ga ti on . The pa ym en t o f fees is curren tl y

st ay ed , pen di ng res ol ut io n o f th is ap pe al an d fu rth er ru li ng s b y th e d is tri ctco urt. Kearn ey rai se s t hr ee i ss ue s o n app eal : the pro pr ie ty of th e v erd ic t fo rm an d jury ins tru ct io ns ; the di st ric t co urt’s ex cl us io n o f certa in ex pe rt t es ti m on y ; an d h is
en ti tl em en t t o p rev ai li ng pa rty sta tu s. W e ad dr es s t he se is su es in turn . 2 II. Kearn ey arg ue s fi rs t tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n u si ng a ve rd ic t fo rm

an d ju ry in st ru ct io ns th atco m

pr es se d t wo d is ti nc t cl ai m s fo r rel ie f in to a si ng le cau se of a ct io n. Sp eci fic al ly, Kearn ey arg ue s t ha t the ve rd ic t fo rm

Kea rney prese nts as a four

th issue whether

this Court shoul d reve rse the district c ourt’s 2 awa rds of c osts to Auto-Owners. B eca use we aff

irm the district court’s r

ulings, this contention is moot, and we ther efor e do not addr ess it. See Manc ill v. Hall, 545 F.3d 935, 939 n.4 (11th Cir. 2008). 7an d ju ry

in st ru ct io ns us edby the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y requi redth e jury to
co ns id er wh ethe r Aut o- Owner s en ga ge d i n u nf ai r cl ai m pra ct ic es (as de fin edby Fl or id a la w) as pa rt

of Kearn ey ’s cla im

th atAut o- Owner s en ga ge d i n b adfai th in ha nd li ng hi s cl ai m s. Kearne y arg ue s t ha t the se were ac tu al ly two s ep arat e th eo rie s of li ab il it y , andth atth e jury thu s s ho ul d h av e h adth e o pp ortu ni ty to ru le ag ai ns t Aut o- Owner s o n ei th er

gro un d. Whi le Aut o- Owner s ac kn owl ed ge s t ha t Kea rn ey co ul d h av e p le d t he se cla im s s ep arat el y as d is ti nc t caus es of a ct io n, i t as se rts th at hi s co nduc t dur in g t he co ur se of l it ig at io n s up po rts th e v erd ic t fo rm an d ju ry in st ru ct io n u lt im at el y

us edby the di st ric t co urt. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s “ [j] ury in st ru ct io ns . . . fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Sh ap s v . Pro vi de ntLife & Acc. In s. Co ., 24 4 F .3d87 6, 8 87 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Si m il arl y , “ [b ]othth e que st io n o f whe th er t o e m pl oy spe ci al in te rro ga to rie s an d th e que st io n o f ho w th os e in te rro ga to rie s ar e to be fram edare m at te rs withi n t he di sc ret io n o f th e tr ia l ju dg e.” Wors ha m v. A.H. Rob in s C o., 7 34 F.2d67 6, 6 90 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) . Here, th e p ro pr ie ty of th e jury verd ic t fo rm an d ju ry in st ru ct io ns de pe nd s en ti rel y

up on whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t Kearn ey al le ge d o nl y

on e th eo ry

of p rimary

li ab il it y reg ard in g Au to -Work ers ha nd li ng of Kearn ey ’s cla im s.

8To m ak e th is de te rm in at io n, we l oo k t o s ee p reci se ly wha t i ss ue s Kea rn ey

li ti ga te d b efo re the di st ric t co urt. Alt ho ug h aparty’ s p le ad in gs ge ne ral ly ide nt ify th e d is pu te be twee n t wo p art ie s, “ [t]he pre -tr ia l o rd er s up ers ed es th e p le ad in gs an d be co m es th e g ov ern in g p atte rnof t he laws ui t.” Pa c. In de m . Co. v . Bro wardCn ty., 46 5 F .2d99 , 10 3 (5 th Cir . 19 72 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Mo reo ve r, we ha ve 3
reco gn iz edth atun de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 5( b) , “unpl edis su es whi ch are t rie d wi th eit he r th e ex pr es s o r im pl ie d c on se ntof t he pa rti es are t o b e tr eat ed
as if t he y were ra is edin th e p le ad in gs .” Cio ffe v . Mo rri s, 6 76 F.2d53 9, 5 41 (11 th Ci r. 19 82 ). Suc h i m

pl ie d c on se ntis li m it ed , ho wev er, t o c as es in whi ch itis

“ ev id en t.” Id . at 5 41 –4 2 (f in di ng no im

pl ie d c on se ntfora th eo ry of l iabi li ty
ne it he r m en ti on edin th e p art ie s’ con tra ct s n or sep arat el y

id en ti fie d dur in g t he
co ur se of t ria l). “ A di stric t co urt h as bro addi sc ret io n t o c on stru e it s o wn p retria l
or de rs an d we a ffo rdsubs ta nt ia l d efer en ce t o atri al co urt’s d eci si on to all ow (o r di sa ll ow) am en dm en ts to pre tri al ord ers .” Tran sa m eri ca Leas in g, In c. v. In st . of Lon do n Un de rwri te rs , 43 0 F .3d13 26 , 13 34 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d)
.

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 3 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all Fifth Circuit dec isions handed down prior to the c lose of business on September 30, 1981. 9W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i ts ch oi ce

of jury in st ru ct io ns or v erd ic t fo rm . To th e co nt rary, the c ou rt r eas on ab ly
co nc lu de d t ha t Kearn ey ’s am en de d c om pl ai ntan d t he pa rti es ’ joi ntpre tri al st at em en t d em on st rat edth atKearn ey bro ug hton ly one cla im

—t ha t Au to -Owne rs en ga ge d i n b adfai th—t o the sec on d t ria l. In de ed , inth e p art ie s’ join t p retria l st at em en t, wh ic h t he Co urt ad op te d i nt o i ts pre -tr ia l Ord er, Kearne y cle arl y de li ne at edth athi s cl ai m

forrel ie f st emm edso le ly from “ Aut o- Owner s b reac h[ ] [o f] the du ty of go odfai th ” itowedto Kearn ey . This st at em en t, fro m whi ch Kearn ey ne ve r ret reat ed , th us bo un d t he parti es to li ti ga te on ly the si ng le is su e o f whe th er Au to -Owne rs en ga ge d i n b adfai th—wh ic h c ou ldbe pr ov en by
em ph as iz in g i ts un fai r cl ai m s p ract ic es —i n i ts ha nd li ng of Ke arn ey ’s cla im s fo r UM p aym en ts . See Pac . Ind em . Co., 4 65 F.2dat 1 03
. Nor , as Kea rn ey

arg ue s, d idth e d is tri ctco urt err infai li ng to reco gn iz e th at Aut o- Owner s i m

pl ie dl y co ns en te d t o l it ig at e th e se pa rat e th eo ry of l iabi lt iy st em m in g fr om

it s u nf ai r cl ai m s p ract ic es . To be su re, i n t he joi ntpre tri al st at em en t Kea rn ey

sep arat el y

setforth a cl ai m

for pu ni ti ve dam ag es in whi ch he
m en ti on edun fai r cl ai m s p ract ic es , bu t the pu ni ti ve da m ag es cla im was d is m is se d by the di st ric t co urt an d was th eref or e p ro pe rly excl ud edfro m th e jury ins tru ct io ns
an d v erd ic t fo rm . Inan y

ev en t, the Pret ria l Ord er m ad e cl ear t ha t Kea rn ey ’s

10refe ren ce t o u nf ai r cl ai m s p ract ic es supp orte d t he fig ur e o f da m ag es he so ug ht up on pro vi ng th e und erl y in g b adfai th cla im , as o pp os edto anin de pe nd en t the ory to est ab li sh pri m ary li ab il ity . For t hi s re as on , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n d et erm in in g t ha t thi s al le ga ti on di d n otde m on st rat e “ ev id en t”
co ns en t t o t ry

sep arat e th eo rie s o f li ab il it y . See Ci of fe, 6 76 F.2dat 5 41 –4 3. Bec au se Kearn ey

on ly ple d o ne th eo ry

of l iabi li ty, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n g iv in g ju ry in st ru ct io ns an d ave rd ic t fo rm th atin tu rn li m it edth e jury’ s co ns id erat io n t o t ha t s in gl e th eo ry . Thu s, the jury in st ru ct io ns an d v erd ic t fo rm

do no t warran t a n ew tr ia l.

III. Kearn ey arg ue s n ex t tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y ex cl ud in g th e ex pe rt t es ti m on y

of an a tt orne y , W il li am

Hahn . Kearn ey

cla im s t ha t Hah n’s te st im on y wou ldha ve co nt rib ut edto th e jury’ s u nd ers tand in g o f ho w an i ns ur an ce co m pa ny eval ua te s t he m eas ur e o f da m ag es forcla im s l ik e Kearn ey ’s. This , Kearn ey subm it s, wo ul d h av e ai de d t he jury’ s d et erm in at io n o f whe th er Au to Owner s emplo y edgo odfai thin ev al ua ti ng Kearn ey ’s dam ag es . Aut o- Owner s res po nd s tha t Hah n’s t es ti m on y was p ro pe rly excl ud edbe cau se itwas n otrel ev an t to anis su e p res en te d t o the jury, an d a lt ern at iv el y be cau se itwas c um

ul at iv e o f ot he r te st im on y

subm it te d b y

Kearn ey . 11“ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ex cl us io n o f expe rt t es ti m on y forab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Hend rix ex rel . G.P. v. Even flo Co ., Inc ., 60 9 F .3d11 83 , 11 91 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ W e wil l d eferto th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng un le ss itis m an ife st ly
erro ne ou s.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Mor eo ve r, “ [w]here a n e xp ert ’s te st im on y co ul d m is le adth e jury by ad dr es si ng fact or s wh ic h a s a m atte r of law
are n otrel ev an t t o t he is su es in th e d is pu te , th enex cl us io n u nd er Ru le 40 3 i s ap pr op ria te .” U.S. v. 0 .16 1 Acr es of Lan d, M or e o r Les s, Si tu at edin Cit y of Bi rm in gh am , Jef

fers on Cn ty., Ala., 8 37 F.2d10 36 , 10 42 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng Hahn ’s te st im on y . Whi le th e co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t Hah n was qu al ifi edto gi ve an ex pe rt o pi ni on on da m ag e cal cu la ti on ge ne ral ly, itals o fo un d t ha t h is tes ti m on y wou ldno t as si stth e jury in re so lv in g t he is su es be fo re the m . Hah n’s ex pe rt r ep ort st at edth athi s t es ti m on y

wou ldest ab li sh th atitwas re as on ab le to ass um e a jury wou ldawardKearn ey

eco no m ic lo ss dam ag es in ex ces s o f $5 0 m il li on . Butth is te st im on y wou ldno t h av e b een rel ev an t, b ecau se a pr io r jury det erm in at io n— in th e fi rs t p ha se of t he bi fu rcat edtri al —h adalr eady va lu edKearn ey ’s dam ag es at $3 5 m il li on . Mor eo ve r, Hah n t es ti fie d i n h is de po si ti on th athe di d n otpo ss es s kn owl ed ge of ho wAut o- Owner s i nv es ti ga te d Kea rn ey ’s cla im
. Hah n’s t es ti m on y bo re m uc h m or e cl os el y

to th e is su e al read y

res ol ve d i n t he fir stph as e o f th e tr ia l, 12na m el y

th e am ou ntof d am ag es owedto Kearn ey . For t hi s re as on , itwas n ot

“ m an ife st ly erron eo us ” fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o e xc lu de Kahn ’s tes ti m on y , in so far
as th is tes ti m on y

m ay ve ry well ha ve pro ve n m or e p reju di ci al th anpro ba ti ve . Hen dr ix , 60 9 F .3dat 1 19 1; 0.1 61 Acres of Lan d, 8 37 F.2dat 1 04 2.

IV. Fi na ll y , Kearn ey

arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n de nyin g h im

anawardof c os ts forpre va il in g o n h is un de rlyin g c la im . Kearn ey reas on s t ha t h e was th e p rev ai li ng pa rty becaus e h e u lt im at el y rece iv edth e $ 5-
m il li on paym en t fr om

Aut o- Owner s t ha t co ns ti tu te d C ou ntII o f hi s i ni ti al
co m pl ai nt . Inres po ns e, Aut o- Owner s ar gu es th atalt ho ug h i t p ai d the $5 m il li on to Kearn ey , Cou ntII was ul ti m at el y res ol ve d b y

Kearn ey ’s vo lu nt ary m ot io n t o di sm is s t he cla im

with p reju di ce. Aut o- Owner s s ub m it s t ha t ev enth ou gh Kearn ey ob ta in edso m e o f th e rel ie f he so ug ht , th is factdo es no t re nd er the di st ric t co urt’s de ci si on no t t o a wardco st s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

“ W e rev ie w th e fac tu al fin di ng s u nd erl y in g adi st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n reg ard in g p rev ai li ng pa rty sta tu s fo r cl ear e rro r.” Headv. Me df or d, 6 2 F .3d35 1, 35 4 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 5) . “ Whe th er the fact s as fou ndsu ffi ce t o re nd er the pl ai nt iff a ‘prev ai li ng pa rty’ is a le ga l que st io n re vi ewedde no vo .” Ch ur ch of S ci en to lo gy 13Fl ag Serv ., Org., In c. v. Ci ty of Cl earwa te r, 2 F.3 d 1 50 9, 1 51 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3)
.

“ Fi na ll y , a di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t a p arty ha s p rev ai le d fo r pu rp os es of award in g a tt orne y s’ fees is rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Med fo rd , 62 F.3dat 35 4. W e ag ree tha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g Kearn ey ’s reque stforfees as t he pre va il in g p arty . As th e Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d, “ [a] defe nd an t’s v ol un ta ry ch an ge in co nduc t, al th ou gh pe rh ap s acco m pl is hi ng whatth e p la in ti ff s ou gh t t o a ch ie ve by the laws ui t, l ack s t he
ne ces sa ry jud ic ia l imp ri mat ur on th e ch an ge [to warran t an awardpre m is edon pr ev ai li ng pa rty sta tu s].” Buc kh an no n B d. & Care Hom e, In c. v. W. Va. D ep ’t of Heal th & Hum anRes ., 53 2 U.S. 5 98 , 60 5, 1 21 S. Ct. 1 83 5, 1 84 0 (2 00 1) . Ind eed , we ha ve pre vi ou sl y

su gg es te d t ha t Kea rn ey ’s vo lu nt ari ly dis m is sa l o f Co un t II wit h p reju di ce i s an act io n t ha t m ig htactua ll y ren de r Aut o- Owner s t he pre va il in g pa rty. See Mat th ews v. Cr os by, 480 F.3d12 65 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). As s uc h, 4 we fi ndno ba si s upo n wh ic h t o re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atKearn ey is no t the pre va il in g p arty with re sp ectto Co un t II
.

Be cause Auto-Owne rs did not cross-a ppeal on this issue, howeve r, we do not decide 4 whether Auto-Owne rs is itself entitled to costs relatingto Count I I . See, e.g ., Ba by Buddie s, Inc. v. Toy s R Us, Inc., 611 F .3d 1308, 1313 n.11 (11th Cir. 2010). Rather, w e point to Matthews mere ly to underscor e the soundne ss of the district court’ s conclusion. 14V.

Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we affi rm . AFFIR MED.

15