[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 7
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12423

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Cassandra Passmore appeals the summary judgment against 

her claim 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 

its offers of settlement from a later trial on her claim of breach of 

contract. We affirm.

Travelers issued Passmore an insurance policy for her home 

in Brunswick, Georgia, with limits of liability of $167,000 for her

house and $83,500 for her personal property. 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 her living room, bedroom, and hallway. Passmore told 

Travelers that she had not completed repairs it had covered in 2016 

for storm-related damage to the ceilings 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 photographs of the affected areas of her 

home. Travelers enclosed its estimate in a letter that requested

Passmore resolve any “questions about . . . the estimate . . . before 

beginning . . . repairs.” Passmore did not contact Travelers.

USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 2 of 7
21-12423 Opinion of the Court 3

Passmore hired Wilfred Atwater, the same repairman she had used 

in 2016, to repair 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 $43,200 for ten repairs. Atwater 

allocated $9,750 to replace Passmore’s roof based on an estimate 

that a third party, KM 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 proposed repairs “under a full reservation of rights.” The letter quoted provisions of her policy regarding 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, including 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 7
4 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 losses attributable to deterioration, 

wear and tear, and neglect of property and that her claim for bad 

faith damages failed as a matter of law. Passmore responded 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 Travelers] 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 contract and granted it summary 

judgment against her claim of bad faith, 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 rejected 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 “inten[ded] to deceive or mislead” her or that she 

“read or relied on [the] letter before filing suit.” 

Before trial, Travelers moved successfully to exclude evidence of its settlement negotiations with Passmore. The district 

USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 4 of 7
21-12423 Opinion of the Court 5

court ruled 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 exclusion of evidence regarding settlement negotiations, and we review that 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 complaint of bad 

faith. Under Georgia law, which the 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 maintains that Travelers acted in bad faith by 

misstating the length of time she had to file suit, but “[i]f there is 

USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 5 of 7
6 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, the 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 Passmore 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 court 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 Georgia 

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. Evid. 1101. And Passmore 

USCA11 Case: 21-12423 Date Filed: 01/27/2022 Page: 6 of 7
21-12423 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