Opinion ID: 4290994
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Insurer’s Good-Faith Duty to Insured

Text: As we explained in Cadle v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Florida Statue § 624.155 created a statutory first-party bad faith cause of action that “extended the duty of an insurer to act in good faith in handling claims brought by its own insured under a UM policy and exposed the insurer to the consequences of failing to do so.” 838 F.3d 1113, 1123 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 185 So.3d 1214, 1220 (Fla. 2016)). “The insurer must investigate the facts, give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts, and settle, if possible, where a reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect of paying the total recovery, would do so.” Id. (quoting Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So.2d 665, 668–69 (Fla. 2004)). “While the determination of whether an insurer acted in bad faith in handling an insured’s claims generally is decided under the totality of the circumstances, each case is decided on its facts.” Id. (quoting Berges, 896 So.2d at 680). “Although the issue of bad faith is ordinarily a question for the jury, [the Florida Supreme Court] and the district courts [of appeal] have, in certain circumstances, concluded as a matter of law that an insurance company could not be liable for bad faith.” Id. at 1123–24 (emphasis in original) (quoting Berges, 896 8 Case: 17-15340 Date Filed: 07/03/2018 Page: 9 of 14 So.2d at 680); Mesa v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 799 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming summary judgment where Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that insurer acted in bad faith).