Case Name: Daniel J. DIPERNA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-13
Citations: 653 F. App'x 902
Docket Number: No. 14-12011
Parties: Daniel J. DIPERNA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 902–903

Head Matter:
Daniel J. DIPERNA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-12011
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Date Filed: 08/13/2015
Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., Buell & Elli-gett, PA, Ronald E. Bush, Brandon Timonty Kuhn, Hughes Hamilton Rice, III, James J. Wimsatt, Bush Graziano Rice & Platter, PA, Tampa, FL, Nicholas Peter Panagakis, Morgan & Morgan, PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Billy Richard Young, Megan Alexander, Michael Todd Bill, Amanda L. Kidd, Courtney F. Smith, Jordan M. Thompson, Pensacola, FL, Adam Duke, Katina M. Hardee, Miami, FL, Young Bill Roumbos & Boles, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, District Judge.
Honorable C. Roger Vinson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant GEICO General Insurance Co. (GEICO) appeals the district court's denial of its Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Daniel Diperna, as assignee of non-party Joseph Umberger, GEICO's insured, on a claim for bad faith. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). GEICO claims that the evidence at trial did not establish an essential element of Diperna's claim for bad faith.
We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299, 1310 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). A court should render judgment as a matter of law when "a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). The court should review the entire record, but "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2110, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). Thus, the court "must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe," while giving credence to evidence favoring the movant that is "uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses." Id. at 151, 120 S.Ct. at 2110 (internal quotation marks omitted)..
Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Diperna, that evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding bad faith on GEICO's part. For that reason, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.