Opinion ID: 2789666
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the relation-back issue

Text: We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the Hilsons’ amendment setting out their professional negligence claim related back to their original complaint. The professional negligence claim alleged that Bloom, the Insurance Company’s in-house lawyer, was negligent in handling the defense, causing the failure to settle Johnson’s claims against the Hilsons within the policy limits, and thus causing the excess judgment against the Hilsons. Although the original complaint relied on the theory of bad faith, the original allegations of fact expressly pleaded that the insurance company’s actions in defending the Hilsons from the claims in the underlying case were negligent. The factual allegations included the following: • Failing to exercise reasonable diligence and a level of care commensurate with the undertaking, in every respect of handling the claim against plaintiffs; • Negligently and carelessly adjusting in investigating and defending the claims against plaintiffs. 3 Case: 13-14329 Date Filed: 03/27/2015 Page: 4 of 7 We conclude that the factual allegations of the original complaint amply notified the Insurance Company and Bloom of a claim that their actions were negligent. We conclude that relation back is appropriate in this case both pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(A) (pursuant to Florida law); and also pursuant to Rule 15(c)(1)(B) (pursuant to federal law). Florida case law indicates that relation back is appropriate in this case. See, e.g., Cinque v. Ungaro, Weber and Brezing, 622 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Under federal law, Rule 15(c)(1)(B), we also conclude that the amendment asserts a claim “that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out . . . in the original pleading.” 1 Indeed, the crucial facts underlying both the bad faith claim and the professional negligence claim are identical – i.e., the failure of attorney Bloom to promptly gain access to the medical evidence in order to evaluate the claim of the underlying plaintiff against the Hilsons, resulting in the failure to settle the underlying claim within the policy limits, thus giving rise to the excess judgment against the insureds-Hilsons.