[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 21

- 12423
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
CASSANDRA PASSMORE,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 2:19

- cv

- 00059

- LGW

- BWC

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 1 of 72 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12423

Before W ILLIAM P RYOR , Chief Judge, R OSENBAUM , and G RANT , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Cassandra Passmore appeals the summary judgment against her clai m of bad faith by her insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, see O.C.G.A. § 33

- 4

- 6, and the exclusion of evidence of i ts offers of settlement from a later trial on her claim of breach of

contract . We affirm.
Travelers issued Passmore a n insurance policy for her ho m e in Brunswick, Georgia , with limits of liability of $167,000 for he r house and $83,500 for her personal prop erty

. On September 11, 2017, Passmore filed a claim seeking coverage for damage to her home from Hurricane Irma

. An inspection revealed storm

- related damage to Passmore’s roof, to one bathroom wall, and to the ceilings in he r living room, bedroom, and hall way. Passmore told Travelers that she had not completed repair s it had covered in 2016 for storm

- related damage to the ceiling s in several rooms

. On September 25, 2017, Travelers paid Passmore $5,341.71 in actual cash damages to her property. Travelers mailed Passmore an estimate containing p hotographs of the affected areas of her home. Travelers enclosed its estimate in a letter that request ed Passmore resolve any “questions about

. . . the estimate

. . . before beginning . . . repairs.” Passm ore did not contact Travelers

. USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 2 of 721

- 12423 Opinion of the Court 3

Passmore hired Wilfred Atwater, the same repairman she had used in 2016 , to r epair some damage to her home. In December 2018, Passmore notified Travelers that she was “disput[ing] the claim . . . [she] filed last year
, ” and she submitted a proposal from Atwater for $ 4 3 , 2 00 for ten r epair s

. Atwater allocated $9,750 to replace Passmore’s roof base d on an estimate that a third party, K M Homebuilders
, had prepared in July 2017

. The proposal did not price any of the other repairs to Passmore ’s property

. Travelers sent Passmore a letter stating that it “ha[d] been unable to determine whether [her] claim [was] covered under [her] policy based on the information available . . . at this time” and that “research [was] ongoing” on the pr oposed repairs “under a full reservation of rights

. ” The letter quot ed provisions of he r policy regard ing losses not covered and excluded from coverage for deterioration, wear and tear, and neglect

. The letter also quoted several provisions of the policy addressing the duties of a policyholder
, includ ing a warning that “[n]o action shall be brought [against Travelers] UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS AND THE ACTION IS STARTED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE OCCURRENCE CAUSING LOSS OR DAMAGE.” Passmore filed in a Georgia court her complaint against Travelers that sought $ 43,200 for its breach of contract plus a penalty of half that amount and attorney’s fees for acting in bad faith
, O.C.G.A. § 33

- 4

- 6, and Travelers removed the action to federal USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 3 of 74 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12423 court, 28 U.S.C. § 1332

. Travelers moved for summary judgment and argued that Passmore was not entitled to further payment because her policy did not cover loss e s attributable to deterioration, wear and tear, and neglect of property and that her c laim for bad faith damages failed as a matter of law

. Passmore respond ed that Travelers acted in bad faith by resisting payment without good cause and failing to respond to her claim

. Passmore cited as “one indication of . . . bad faith . . . [that Travele rs] attempted to claim that the policy has a time limit on suits
, ” and she averred that Travelers in its letter “was intentionally trying to mislead and defraud [her] by telling [her] that it was too late to bring legal action

. ”
The district court denied Travelers summary judgment on Passmore’s claim of breach of contrac t and granted it summary judgment against her claim o f bad fait h
, O.G.C.A. § 33

- 4

- 6

. The district court ruled that Travelers “issue[d] payments to [Passmore]based on . . . [its adjuster’s] estimate” and had “independent reasonable grounds” to “contest the larger payment [Passmore] demanded” given the “disputed questions of fact” about coverage. The district court reje cted as “without merit” Passmore’s argument about being “deceived . . . into relinquishing her rights” because Travelers “[n]ever relied on the erroneous . . . provision in contesting her claim” and because Passmore offered no evidence that the insurer “in ten [ded] to deceive or mislead” her or that she “read or relied on [the] letter before filing suit.” Before trial, Travelers mo ved successfully to exclude evidence of its settlement negotiations with Passmore

. The district USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 4 of 721

- 12423 Opinion of the Court 5

court rul ed that evidence of offers to settle are governed by federal law, that the evidence is generally inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 , and that Passmore “failed to point to any permissible purpose” to admit the evidence

. After a two

- day trial, the jury found that Travelers breached its contract with Passmore. The jury awarded Passmore $3,512.10 in damages.

Passmore challenges the summary judgment against her claim of bad faith
, and we review the issue de novo

. See Pelaez v. Gov ’ t Emps. Ins. Co. , 13 F.4th 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2021)

. To resolve the issue , we view the facts and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in Passmore’s favor. See id. Passmore also challenges the e xclu sion of evidence regarding settlement negotiations, and we review th at evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Arias , 431 F.3d 1327, 1338 (11th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, we reverse only if the district court made a clear error of judgment or applied the wrong legal standard. Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc. , 583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009).The district court did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of Travelers and against Passmore’s c omplaint of bad faith. Under Georgi a law, which t he parties agree applies, “ bad faith is any frivolous and unfounded refusal in law or in fact to pay according to the terms of the policy.” Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sanders
, 779 S.E.2d 459, 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Passmore maintain s that Travelers acted in bad faith by mis stat ing the length of time s he had to file suit, but “ [i] f there is USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 5 of 76 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12423 any reasonable ground for the insurer to contest the claim, there is no bad faith
, ” Dependable Ins. Co. v. Gibbs , 127 S.E.2d 454, 461 (Ga. 1962 )

. And Passmore does not dispute that Travelers had reasonable grounds to contest her claim when material questions existed about whether the amount it paid for roof repairs was adequate and whether other repairs identified in Atwater’s proposal were covered under the policy

. In addition, t he letter that misstated the timeframe to sue Travelers did not constitute “an absolute denial of liability . . . [ or ] a refusal .

. . to make a bona fide effort to effect a settlement of the claim ” for which Pa ssmore could recover the “ statutory penalty and attorney ’ s fees for bad faith. ” See Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Parks

- Chambers, Inc. , 142 S.E.2d 275, 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965). The letter stated that Travelers had “research . . . ongoing to determine whether coverage is provided by [its] policy” and would “continue to research [ Passmore’s ] claim under a full reservation of rights until coverage is determined

. ” As the district co urt stated, Passmore’s claim of bad faith “fail[ed] as a matter of law.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence of offers Travelers made to settle with Passmore. Passmore argues that the evidence is admissible under Georg ia law, but “it is well settled that the Federal Rules of Evidence, not state evidence law, govern the admissibility of evidence in cases in federal court,” City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc ., 158 F.3d 548, 558 n.10 (11th Cir. 1998). See Fed. R. Ev id. 1101. And Passmore USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 6 of 721

- 12423 Opinion of the Court 7

does not dispute that the evidence was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408.

We AFFIRM the partial summary judgment against Passmore’s claim of bad faith and the exclusion of her evidence of settlement offers. USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 7 of 7