Court Opinion

ID: 9403128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 16:00:49.068174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:04.726753
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13496    Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023   Page: 1 of 26

                                                             [PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 21-13496
                           ____________________

        AMERICAN BUILDERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-81357-WM
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 2 of 26

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13496

                        ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
        Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, ROSENBAUM, and MARCUS,
        Circuit Judges.
        MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
               Southern-Owners Insurance Company’s motion for panel
        rehearing is granted, and we vacate our previous opinion, pub-
        lished at 56 F.4th 938 (11th Cir. 2023), and substitute the following
        opinion in its place. In this opinion, we change section II.C in light
        of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dupree v. Younger, 143
        S. Ct. 1382 (2023). We make no further changes to the opinion,
        and our holding remains the same.
                 Ernest Guthrie fell from a roof and became paralyzed from
        the waist down, never to walk again. Within months, his medical
        bills climbed past $400,000, and future costs projected into the mil-
        lions. Three insurance companies potentially provided coverage
        for Guthrie. This appeal is a battle between two of them.
                 The primary insurer for Guthrie’s company was Southern-
        Owners Insurance Company. At the time of the accident, Guthrie
        was performing subcontracting work for Beck Construction, which
        had a policy with American Builders Insurance Company and an
        excess policy with Evanston Insurance Company. American Build-
        ers investigated the accident, assessed Beck Construction’s liability,
        and evaluated Guthrie’s claim. Southern-Owners, in contrast, did
        little to nothing for months. When push came to shove, Southern-
        Owners refused to pay any amount to Guthrie to settle the claim,
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 3 of 26

        21-13496               Opinion of the Court                         3

        and American Builders and Evanston ponied up a million dollars
        apiece instead.
               American Builders then sued Southern-Owners for com-
        mon law bad faith under Florida’s doctrine of equitable subroga-
        tion. Along the way, Southern-Owners moved for summary judg-
        ment, but the district court denied the motion. A federal trial jury
        heard the case and found in favor of American Builders. After the
        entry of final judgment, Southern-Owners sought judgment as a
        matter of law, or, in the alternative, a new trial. The district court
        denied those motions, too. On appeal, Southern-Owners chal-
        lenges the denials of its summary judgment and post-trial motions.
               After thorough review of the record and with the benefit of
        oral argument, we affirm.
                                          I.
                                         A.
               Ernest Guthrie, an employee of Ernest Guthrie, LLC per-
        forming work for Beck Construction, slipped from the roof of a
        house on April 1, 2019, and crashed to the ground. He became
        paralyzed from the waist down. Guthrie’s lawyer, Stuart Cohen,
        wrote to Beck Construction to assert the company’s liability and
        request insurance information. Beck Construction, in turn, put its
        insurer, American Builders on notice on May 8. American Builders
        had issued a general liability policy to Beck Construction, with a
        limit of $1 million for each occurrence. American Builders’ claim
        specialist investigated the incident by meeting with the company
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 4 of 26

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13496

        and its outside investigator and collecting hospital records, rehabil-
        itation facility records, and correspondences about the claim and
        injuries.
               Cohen investigated his client’s claim, too. He determined
        that Beck Construction instructed Guthrie to climb onto the roof
        without providing any fall protection, while two spotters focused
        on their phones. Guthrie had already sustained $400,000 in medical
        expenses, and Cohen calculated Guthrie’s claim at $4 million to $5
        million, even if Guthrie were partially liable. On September 5, Co-
        hen demanded that American Builders pay its $1 million policy
        limit within thirty days in exchange for a release of Beck Construc-
        tion from liability. American Builders requested an extension, and
        Cohen granted ten days, placing the deadline on October 14.
               Cohen conditioned that demand on the lack of other availa-
        ble insurance. But, as it turns out, there were two other relevant
        policies: Evanston provided an excess policy worth $1 million per
        occurrence to Beck Construction, and Southern-Owners -- which
        would become the defendant in the instant bad-faith case -- sold
        Ernest Guthrie, LLC a policy that covered $1 million. Southern-
        Owners’ policy contained an endorsement naming Beck Construc-
        tion as an additional insured for any work Ernest Guthrie, LLC per-
        formed for Beck Construction, and making its policy the primary
        insurer for claims arising from Beck Construction’s work.
               During American Builders’ investigation, it discovered these
        additional policies. So, on September 12, it tendered the defense of
        and indemnity for Guthrie’s claim to Southern-Owners. In its
USCA11 Case: 21-13496     Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023    Page: 5 of 26

        21-13496               Opinion of the Court                       5

        letter to Southern-Owners, American Builders attached the certifi-
        cate of insurance listing Beck Construction as an additional insured
        on Ernest Guthrie, LLC’s policy; the initial notice of the claim to
        American Builders; and Cohen’s September 5 demand letter. A
        couple weeks later, on September 25, Southern-Owners’ counsel
        sent letters to Cohen, American Builders, and Beck Construction,
        requesting additional incident reports, medical records, workers’
        compensation records, potentially applicable insurance policies,
        applicable construction contracts, and transcripts or recordings of
        statements by Guthrie and Beck Construction. She also asked Co-
        hen for a forty-five-day extension on the September 5 demand.
               Two days later, Cohen provided Southern-Owners with
        Guthrie’s medical records and bills, American Builders’ insurance
        policy, and correspondences from Cohen to American Builders in
        May and June that explained the accident. Cohen did not respond
        to the forty-five-day extension request, but, that same day, Ameri-
        can Builders requested an extension for American Builders until
        November 4, which Cohen granted. In his letter granting the ex-
        tension, Cohen explained that he recently became aware that
        Southern-Owners and Evanston might also provide coverage for
        the accident. Because of this new information, Guthrie would now
        only execute a release of American Builders that reserved his rights
        to pursue claims against either Evanston or Southern-Owners.
               On October 10, American Builders retained counsel to ad-
        dress Cohen’s new stipulation. Working quickly, the attorney con-
        cluded in a few days that Guthrie’s claim was worth around $20
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 6 of 26

        6                      Opinion of the Court                21-13496

        million to $30 million, far exceeding any applicable policy’s cover-
        age even if Beck Construction were largely not responsible. On
        October 14, he then informed Cohen that American Builders was
        prepared to pay its $1 million policy limit but that it could not ac-
        cept Cohen’s new stipulation because it provided only a partial re-
        lease.
                During the early weeks of October, the record does not re-
        flect that Southern-Owners did anything, other than request exten-
        sions. But on October 18 -- over a month after receiving notice of
        Guthrie’s injury -- Southern-Owners contacted the lawyer that
        American Builders had retained for Beck Construction to set up an
        interview with Russell Beck, the company’s principal. Southern-
        Owners and the attorney spent the rest of October and all of No-
        vember trying to set up a time to talk.
               On November 25, still struggling to set up a meeting with
        Beck, Southern-Owners wrote Cohen, describing the setback and
        noting that it had no written documentation on the claim. South-
        ern-Owners also requested until December 20 to respond to the
        September 5 demand letter. That same day, Southern-Owners told
        American Builders that it would agree to a defense of Beck Con-
        struction under a reservation of rights, but only after it spoke with
        someone from Beck Construction and completed its investigation.
        The letter noted that Southern-Owners’ policy included an em-
        ployer liability exclusion, which might bar coverage. American
        Builders passed along the contents of that letter to Beck Construc-
        tion the same day. Also on November 25, Beck Construction’s
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 7 of 26

        21-13496               Opinion of the Court                        7

        lawyer offered November 26 or 27 for an interview with Beck, but
        Southern-Owners declined because this was not enough notice.
        He then proposed a telephone conference, but Southern-Owners
        demanded an in-person meeting.
              Meanwhile, Cohen continued his attempts to secure pay-
        ment for Guthrie. On November 18, he wrote to Evanston’s claims
        manager, attaching the September 5 demand letter, the medical
        records, and other relevant documents, and made a new demand:
        a $2 million payout in exchange for a complete release of both
        American Builders and Evanston, with a decision due by December
        18. American Builders received a copy of the November 18 de-
        mand letter two days later.
               On December 10, nearly three months after it received no-
        tice of the claim, Southern-Owners finally met with Beck. Beck
        told Southern-Owners that Ernest Guthrie, LLC employed Guth-
        rie; Guthrie was performing subcontracting work for Beck Con-
        struction; the other people on site were not responsible for spotting
        Guthrie; Guthrie did not request fall protection; and Guthrie ad-
        mitted that he “f*cked up” and “stepped off the roof.” Based on
        that conversation, Southern-Owners believed it had a strong liabil-
        ity defense. One week later, Southern-Owners decided it should
        talk with the other two workers present. At that time, Southern-
        Owners’ counsel was “in the process of reaching out” to them.
              Also on December 10, Evanston told American Builders’
        counsel -- who was no longer involved in the case -- that it planned
        to tender its full policy to Guthrie, even though it was not the
USCA11 Case: 21-13496     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 06/20/2023    Page: 8 of 26

        8                     Opinion of the Court                21-13496

        primary insurer. After reactivating his file, counsel saw the No-
        vember 18 demand letter. With only eight days until that letter’s
        deadline, he once again worked fast, reviewed the 2,700-page file,
        and concluded that American Builders should tender its policy limit
        to avoid a bad-faith claim.
               On December 17, after internal discussions, American Build-
        ers decided to tender its limit. It then called Cohen to request a
        one-day extension and discuss the Southern-Owners policy. It
        learned that Guthrie did “not wish to pursue coverage under the
        [Southern-Owners] Policy and desire[d] to move forward with set-
        tlement without involving [Southern-Owners], directly.” Ameri-
        can Builders’ counsel’s understanding was that Cohen and Guthrie
        simply wanted the payout and did not care where the money came
        from.
                The next day, American Builders’ counsel notified Southern-
        Owners of the November 18 demand letter. Since Southern-Own-
        ers was listed as the primary insurer, counsel believed that South-
        ern-Owners had a primary obligation to pay, so he reached out to
        give Southern-Owners a chance to step up before American Build-
        ers did. Additionally, Southern-Owners’ policy required an insured
        receive consent before accepting any settlement. Counsel did not
        want American Builders -- standing in the shoes of Beck Construc-
        tion -- to breach Southern-Owners’ contract by tendering payment
        without consent. Southern-Owners confirmed that it would not
        tender its coverage by the December 19 deadline. American Build-
        ers’ counsel then told Southern-Owners that American Builders
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 9 of 26

        21-13496               Opinion of the Court                        9

        would be paying its policy limit. Later that day, he wrote to South-
        ern-Owners’ counsel to confirm that American Builders was forced
        to pay the policy because Southern-Owners would not, and that
        American Builders would seek equitable subrogation against
        Southern-Owners.
               American Builders paid the policy on December 19, and
        Guthrie provided a release for Beck Construction, American Build-
        ers, and Evanston the next day. At that point, Southern-Owners --
        having only conducted one interview with Beck -- ended its inves-
        tigation.
                                         B.
                American Builders sued Southern-Owners in Florida state
        court for common law bad faith under Florida’s doctrine of equita-
        ble subrogation. Southern-Owners removed the case to the United
        States District Court for the Southern District of Florida based on
        diversity jurisdiction. Southern-Owners later moved for summary
        judgment, in part because it claimed its policy did not cover Guth-
        rie’s injury. The district court denied the motion.
               The parties then consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
        judge, who oversaw a three-day jury trial. After the close of Amer-
        ican Builders’ evidence, Southern-Owners moved for judgment as
        a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). South-
        ern-Owners’ only argument was that American Builders intro-
        duced no evidence that proved Guthrie attempted to settle with
        Southern-Owners. The court denied the motion. After the close
USCA11 Case: 21-13496     Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 06/20/2023   Page: 10 of 26

        10                     Opinion of the Court                21-13496

        of all evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of American
        Builders, and the district court entered final judgment for
        $1,091,240.82. Southern-Owners then filed a renewed motion for
        judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), or, in the alternative,
        a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. This time, Southern-Own-
        ers argued that it could not have settled Guthrie’s demand, and that
        American Builders, standing in the insured’s shoes, breached
        Southern-Owners’ contract by failing to receive its consent before
        settling with Guthrie. The district court denied those motions.
              This timely appeal followed.
                                         II.
               “We review de novo the denial of a motion for judgment as
        a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, viewing
        the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
        St. Louis Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 5 F.4th 1235, 1242
        (11th Cir. 2021). “We review a ruling on a motion for a new trial
        for abuse of discretion,” giving deference to the district court
        “where a new trial is denied and the jury’s verdict is left undis-
        turbed.” McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortg. Serv., Inc., 817 F.3d 1241,
        1255 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “We
        review a district court’s decision on summary judgment de novo,”
        viewing the evidence and drawing all inferences in the light most
        favorable to the non-moving party. Smith v. Owens, 848 F.3d 975,
        978 (11th Cir. 2017).
                                         A.
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 11 of 26

        21-13496                Opinion of the Court                         11

                The first and most significant issue in this appeal is whether
        American Builders proved a bad faith claim. Taking the evidence
        in the light most favorable to American Builders, a reasonable jury
        could have found (as it did) both that Southern-Owners acted in
        bad faith and that its bad faith caused American Builders to pay its
        policy. Moreover, American Builders did not breach Southern-
        Owners’ contract and relieve Southern-Owners of its good-faith
        duties. The district court did not err in denying Southern-Owners’
        Rule 50(b) motion.
                                           1.
                Under controlling Florida law, “the critical inquiry in a bad
        faith [action] is whether the insurer diligently, and with the same
        haste and precision as if it were in the insured’s shoes, worked on
        the insured’s behalf to avoid an excess judgment.” Harvey v.
        GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 259 So. 3d 1, 7 (Fla. 2018). Additionally, any
        “damages claimed by an insured in a bad faith case ‘must be caused
        by the insurer’s bad faith.’” Id. (citation omitted). That is, the bad
        faith conduct must “directly and in natural and continuous se-
        quence produce[] or contribute[] substantially to producing such
        [damage], so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the bad faith
        conduct, the [damage] would not have occurred.” Id. at 11 (quot-
        ing Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 404.6(a)).
                The bad faith inquiry “is determined under the ‘totality of
        the circumstances’ standard,” id. at 7, and we focus “not on the ac-
        tions of the claimant but rather on those of the insurer in fulfilling
        its obligations to the insured,” Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023      Page: 12 of 26

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  21-13496

        665, 677 (Fla. 2004). That said, a claimant’s actions -- such as a de-
        cision not to offer a settlement -- remain relevant in assessing bad
        faith. See Powell v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 12,
        14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Pelaez v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 13 F.4th
        1243, 1254 (11th Cir. 2021). Insurers have obligations “to advise
        the insured of settlement opportunities, to advise as to the probable
        outcome of the litigation, to warn of the possibility of an excess
        judgment, and to advise the insured of any steps he might take to
        avoid [the] same,” as well as to “investigate the facts, give fair con-
        sideration 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.”
        Bos. Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla.
        1980). These “obligations . . . are not a mere checklist,” however,
        and, as the Florida Supreme Court has explained, “[a]n insurer is
        not absolved of liability simply because it advises its insured of set-
        tlement opportunities, the probable outcome of the litigation, and
        the possibility of an excess judgment.” Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 7.
                Moreover, insurance companies occasionally have an af-
        firmative duty to offer settlements. “Bad faith may be inferred
        from a delay in settlement negotiations which is willful and with-
        out reasonable cause.” Powell, 584 So. 2d at 14. Thus, “[w]here
        liability is clear, and injuries so serious that a judgment in excess of
        the policy limits is likely,” the insurer must “initiate settlement ne-
        gotiations.” Id. “In such a case, where ‘[t]he financial exposure to
        [the insured] [i]s a ticking financial time bomb’ and ‘[s]uit c[an] be
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 06/20/2023      Page: 13 of 26

        21-13496                Opinion of the Court                          13

        filed at any time,’ any ‘delay in making an offer under the circum-
        stances of this case even where there was no assurance that the
        claim could be settled could be viewed by a fact finder as evidence
        of bad faith.’” Harvey, 259 So. 2d at 7 (alterations in original) (cita-
        tion omitted).
               At the end of trial, the district court properly and thoroughly
        instructed the jury on bad faith. The court charged the jury to con-
        sider “all of the circumstances” in determining whether the insurer
        “use[d] the same degree of care and diligence as a person of ordi-
        nary care and prudence should exercise in the management of his
        own business,” “investigate[d] the facts, . . . and “settle[d], if possi-
        ble, where a reasonably prudent person faced with the prospect of
        paying the total recovery would do so.” Moreover, the district
        court instructed the jury on causation, observing, among other
        things, that bad faith must “directly and in natural and continuous
        sequence produce[] or contribute[] substantially to producing” any
        damage, though it “need not be the only cause.”
               On this record, there was enough evidence to allow the jury
        to reasonably find that Southern-Owners acted in bad faith because
        it delayed acting on its duty to investigate and settle Guthrie’s
        claim. American Builders notified Southern-Owners of the acci-
        dent on September 12, and Cohen furnished the company with all
        relevant documents on September 27. Among those documents
        were proof of Guthrie’s paraplegic status and medical bills already
        exceeding $400,000 and correspondences between Cohen and
        American Builders, laying out Cohen’s theory of Beck
USCA11 Case: 21-13496     Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023    Page: 14 of 26

        14                     Opinion of the Court                21-13496

        Construction’s liability. Right off the bat, Southern-Owners had
        little work left because the pertinent information landed in its lap.
        Those documents painted a picture of “injuries so serious that a
        judgment in excess of the policy limits [was] likely.” Powell, 584
        So. 2d at 14. All that remained was a meeting with Beck, who could
        have helped inform Southern-Owners whether “liability [was]
        clear.” Id. Instead of meeting with Beck, though, Southern-Own-
        ers dawdled. It did nothing for several weeks before finally reach-
        ing out to Beck Construction’s lawyer. Then, when Southern-
        Owners finally did speak with counsel, it delayed reasonable offers
        to interview Beck for nearly two months, turning down an in-per-
        son meeting for being last-minute and a phone interview for not
        being in person. After finally meeting with Beck in early Decem-
        ber, Southern-Owners decided it needed to follow up with the two
        other workers on site that day. But it delayed again, providing no
        evidence that it reached out to them for at least another two weeks.
        As of December 18, Southern-Owners still had not contacted them
        -- even though Southern-Owners had requested until December 20
        to respond to Cohen’s September 5 demand. With no time to
        spare, Southern-Owners was in essentially the same position it was
        in on September 27.
                That body of evidence could lead a reasonable jury to con-
        clude that Southern-Owners delayed its investigation instead of at-
        tempting “to resolve the coverage dispute promptly” or using “dil-
        igence and thoroughness.” Pozzi Window Co. v. Auto-Owners
        Ins., 446 F.3d 1178, 1188 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting State Farm Mut.
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 15 of 26

        21-13496                Opinion of the Court                        15

        Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55, 63 (Fla. 1995)). And, in that
        delay, a jury could reasonably find that Southern-Owners com-
        pletely neglected its “affirmative duty to initiate settlement negoti-
        ations,” Powell, 584 So. 2d at 14, while Guthrie’s hospital bills
        climbed due to his traumatic injury.
                A reasonable jury could also find that Southern-Owners’ bad
        faith caused American Builders’ damages. See Harvey, 259 So. 3d
        at 7. When American Builders informed Southern-Owners of Co-
        hen’s November 18 demand, Southern-Owners refused to pay be-
        cause it was still investigating the claims. Evanston had already
        tendered its $1 million policy on December 10, but the demand re-
        quested $2 million, so the next million needed to come from either
        Southern-Owners or American Builders. After Southern-Owners
        balked, American Builders had no choice but to tender payment.
        Southern-Owners’ delay in investigating and settling led to its ina-
        bility to tender an offer on December 18. As a result, a reasonable
        jury could find (as it did) that American Builders’ damages
        stemmed directly and naturally from Southern-Owners’ bad faith.
        See id. at 11.
               In defense, Southern-Owners points the finger at Guthrie
        and Cohen. It focuses on their two settlement demands, neither of
        which named Southern-Owners, and on Cohen’s statement that he
        and Guthrie had no interest in negotiating with Southern-Owners
        directly. However, “[t]he lack of a formal offer to settle does not
        preclude a finding of bad faith.” Powell, 584 So. 2d at 14. Instead,
        under Florida law, it “is merely one factor to be considered.” Id. A
USCA11 Case: 21-13496        Document: 52-1         Date Filed: 06/20/2023        Page: 16 of 26

        16                         Opinion of the Court                      21-13496

        jury could find that even though Guthrie and Cohen never made
        an offer to Southern-Owners, this did not wipe Southern-Owners’
        hands clean. What’s more, Southern-Owners was left to explain
        why its own actions were not in bad faith, rather than focusing on
        just the claimant’s actions. Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 7. Of course,
        “there’s a difference between focusing on a claimant’s actions,
        which would be improper, and factoring a claimant’s actions into
        the totality of the circumstances analysis, which is not improper.”
        Pelaez, 13 F.4th at 1254 (emphasis in original). In this case, though,
        Southern-Owners flipped Florida law on its head and exclusively
        focused on Guthrie and Cohen’s actions.
                                              2.
               In the alternative, Southern-Owners argues that a reasona-
        ble jury should have found that it had no duty to act in good faith
        because American Builders breached Southern-Owners’ contract
        by not receiving consent before settling the claim. 1 As we see it,

        1 Southern-Owners argued that a reasonable jury would have found in its fa-
        vor on this affirmative defense for the first time in its Rule 50(b) motion. But
        “[d]istrict courts lack authority to grant a Rule 50(b) motion on a ground not
        previously raised in a Rule 50(a) motion prior to the submission of the case to
        the jury.” Johnston v. Borders, 36 F.4th 1254, 1270 n.31 (11th Cir. 2022).
        American Builders, however, did not raise this lack of authority in district
        court and thus “fail[ed] to raise the inadequacy of [the] Rule 50(a) motion in
        response to [the] Rule 50(b) motion.” Howard v. Walgreen Co., 605 F.3d
        1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2010). By not raising the argument in the trial court,
        American Builders “forfeited [its] right to raise waiver on appeal.” Id. More-
        over, none of the exceptions to forfeiture apply, and American Builders does
USCA11 Case: 21-13496       Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 06/20/2023       Page: 17 of 26

        21-13496                 Opinion of the Court                           17

        this affirmative defense fails, for two separate reasons. For starters,
        a reasonable jury could find that American Builders’ failure to re-
        ceive consent did not substantially prejudice Southern-Owners.
        What’s more, a reasonable jury could also find that Southern-Own-
        ers did not act diligently or in good faith in attempting to obtain
        consent.
               Southern-Owners’ contract with Beck Construction pro-
        vided that “[n]o insured will, except at the insured’s own cost, vol-
        untarily make a payment, assume any obligation, or incur any ex-
        pense, other than for first aid, without our consent.” “[T]his lan-
        guage requires the insured to obtain the insurer’s consent before
        settling.” Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Perez, 712 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Fla.
        3d DCA 1998). That is, “while an insured is free to enter into a
        reasonable settlement when its insurer has wrongfully refused to
        provide it with a defense to a suit, . . . the insured is not similarly
        free to independently engage in such settlements where, as here,
        the insurer had not declined a defense to suit.” First Am. Title Ins.
        Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 695 So. 2d 475, 477 (Fla. 3d DCA
        1997); see also Am. Reliance Ins. Co., 712 So. 2d at 1212–13.
               The Florida Supreme Court requires an insurer to establish
        three things in order to succeed on this affirmative defense: (1) a
        lack of consent; (2) substantial prejudice to the insurer; and (3) dil-
        igence and good faith by the insurer in attempting to receive

        not argue otherwise. Thus, we consider this argument forfeited, and turn to
        the merits of the affirmative defense.
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1       Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 18 of 26

        18                         Opinion of the Court               21-13496

        consent. See Ramos v. Nw. Mut. Ins. Co., 336 So. 2d 71, 75 (Fla.
        1976); Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Am. Pride Bldg. Co., 601 F.3d
        1143, 1149–50 (11th Cir. 2010). The first element has a few excep-
        tions. The insured may settle without obtaining consent if the in-
        surer “wrongfully refused to provide [the insured] with a defense
        to a suit,” First Am. Tit. Ins. Co., 695 So. 2d at 477, or offers a con-
        ditional defense that the parties cannot agree upon, Taylor v.
        Safeco Ins. Co., 361 So. 2d 743, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Moreover,
        even if the insured was obliged to obtain consent, the failure to do
        so is not an affirmative defense unless the insurer also establishes
        substantial prejudice and evinces good faith in bringing about the
        cooperation of the insured. Ramos, 336 So. 2d at 75. As the Florida
        Supreme Court put it:
               This Court . . . emphasized that to constitute the
               breach of a policy, the lack of cooperation must be
               material and the insurance company must show that
               it was substantially prejudiced in the particular case
               by failure to cooperate. Furthermore, . . . the insurer
               must show that it has exercised diligence and good
               faith in bringing about the cooperation of its insured
               and must show that it has complied in good faith with
               the terms of the policy.
        Id. (citations omitted).
               We start with the first element: lack of consent. Over the
        objection of Southern-Owners, the district court instructed the jury
        to decide “whether American Builders Insurance Company
USCA11 Case: 21-13496     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 06/20/2023    Page: 19 of 26

        21-13496               Opinion of the Court                      19

        voluntarily made a payment without obtaining Southern-Owners
        Insurance Company’s prior consent, or whether American Builders
        Insurance Company was legally obligated to make such payment.”
        Both parties agree that American Builders never received consent
        before paying. Instead, they debate only whether American Build-
        ers needed to obtain consent because its payment was not “volun-
        tary.”
               American Builders argued to the jury that its payment was
        involuntary because Southern-Owners unreasonably withheld
        consent and forced American Builders to either pay without con-
        sent or face a bad faith suit itself. The theory went this way: when
        Southern-Owners told American Builders that it would not tender
        payment, American Builders “involuntarily” paid “because of cir-
        cumstances beyond [its] control,” since the “situation requir[ed]
        immediate response to protect its legal interests.” See Rolyn Cos.
        v. R & J Sales of Tex., Inc., 412 F. App’x 252, 255 (11th Cir. 2011)
        (quotation marks and citation omitted). Southern-Owners re-
        sponded that it could not have unreasonably withheld consent be-
        cause American Builders had already decided to pay. The jury was
        told by Southern-Owners that American Builders made its decision
        voluntarily and before seeking any consent.
              We need not settle whether American Builders made a vol-
        untary payment under Florida law because Southern-Owners also
        bore the burden to prove two additional things -- substantial prej-
        udice and good faith -- in order to sustain its affirmative defense,
USCA11 Case: 21-13496     Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 06/20/2023    Page: 20 of 26

        20                     Opinion of the Court               21-13496

        and the jury could reasonably have found that Southern-Owners
        failed to prove either.
               Turning first to prejudice, the district court instructed the
        jury that Southern-Owners “must establish that [American Build-
        ers’] breach of the consent provision was material and caused de-
        fendant to suffer substantial prejudice.” See Ramos, 336 So. 2d at
        75. Southern-Owners provided no evidence of substantial preju-
        dice. In fact, its claim adjuster (John Blaser) unambiguously testi-
        fied that he did not know how Southern-Owners was prejudiced
        by American Builders’ decision to pay. When first asked whether
        Southern-Owners suffered any prejudice, the claim adjuster re-
        sponded “maybe.” And when asked if he had any facts of preju-
        dice, he simply replied, “Not that I’m aware of at this time.”
               We are unpersuaded by Southern-Owners’ claim that it has
        been prejudiced. For starters, Southern-Owners argues it was
        “blindsided” by American Builders’ decision to pay on December
        18 because it was not aware of Cohen’s November 18 demand.
        This argument has several flaws. To begin, American Builders may
        have decided to pay before it called Southern-Owners, but it did
        not plan to tender payment until after learning whether Southern-
        Owners decided to pay instead. The evidence was sufficient to es-
        tablish that American Builders’ payment was contingent on South-
        ern-Owners’ decision. Moreover, this argument overlooks that, by
        the December 18 phone call with American Builders, Southern-
        Owners should have been ready to decide whether it would pay
        anyway because it had asked for an extension on its own
USCA11 Case: 21-13496     Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023    Page: 21 of 26

        21-13496               Opinion of the Court                       21

        investigation until December 20. Lastly, it ignores the company’s
        long months of delay. An insurer must have a reasonable time to
        investigate the claim, see Bos. Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785, but
        the evidence adduced at trial strongly suggested that Southern-
        Owners largely sat on its thumbs.
               Southern-Owners also says that the $1,091,240.92 judgment
        entered by the district court turned Southern-Owners into a judg-
        ment debtor in an amount greater than its policy limits, resulting
        in substantial prejudice. But Southern-Owners forfeited this argu-
        ment by not raising it in district court. See Blue Martini Kendall,
        LLC v. Miami Dade County, 816 F.3d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 2016).
        Regardless, a post-trial judgment does not affect “the rights of the
        insurer in defense of the cause.” Ramos, 336 So. 2d at 75. The
        judgment could not have affected Southern-Owners’ defense be-
        cause it came after Southern-Owners decided not to provide cov-
        erage.
                Finally, as we have already detailed at length, a reasonable
        jury could (and did) plainly find that Southern-Owners did not
        “show that it [had] exercised diligence and good faith.” Id. Amer-
        ican Builders did everything when it came to investigating Guth-
        rie’s claim and deciding whether the insured should make a pay-
        ment, all while Southern-Owners sat back and watched. The Flor-
        ida Supreme Court has been clear on this point: without good faith,
        an insurer may not avail itself of an affirmative defense based on an
        insured’s failure to cooperate. See id.
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 22 of 26

        22                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13496

               The long and short of it is that, on this record, the evidence
        is not “so overwhelmingly in favor of [Southern-Owners] that a
        reasonable jury could not” have ruled for American Builders on
        bad faith and against Southern-Owners on breach of contract. Mid-
        dlebrooks v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc., 256 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir.
        2001). We see no error in the denial of Southern-Owners’
        Rule 50(b) motion.
                                          B.
               Next up is Southern-Owners’ claim that the district court
        abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. South-
        ern-Owners offers four reasons: (1) it did not act in bad faith be-
        cause it was not offered an opportunity to settle; (2) any bad faith
        did not cause American Builders’ damages; (3) American Builders
        breached its contract; and (4) generally, it did not act in bad faith.
                All four of these arguments are retreads of the arguments for
        judgment as a matter of law that we have already rejected. The
        district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. For
        a new trial, Southern-Owners must show “the verdict ‘[was]
        against the clear weight of the evidence or . . . result[ed] in a mis-
        carriage of justice.’” Chmielewski v. City of St. Pete Beach, 890
        F.3d 942, 948 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). As we’ve already
        explained in some detail, sufficient evidence existed for a rational
        jury to find that: (1) Southern-Owners delayed in its investigation
        and neglected to act on its affirmative duty to settle, Powell, 584
        So. 2d at 14; (2) Southern-Owners’ bad faith caused American
        Builders to suffer damages, Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 7, 11; and
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 23 of 26

        21-13496                Opinion of the Court                        23

        (3) American Builders did not breach because Southern-Owners
        did not establish substantial prejudice or good faith, Ramos, 336 So.
        2d at 75. The limited evidence favoring Southern-Owners -- its
        multiple requests for extensions of time and the details from the
        Beck interview -- does not amount to “the clear weight of the evi-
        dence.” Chmielewski, 890 F.3d at 948 (citation omitted).
              The jury’s verdict was not against the clear weight of the
        evidence, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
        ing Southern-Owners’ Rule 59 motion.
                                          C.
                The last issue we’ll mention is whether the district court
        erred in denying Southern-Owners’ summary judgment motion
        because its policy purportedly did not cover Guthrie’s injuries. In
        the past, we would not have considered this argument at all be-
        cause Southern-Owners did not re-raise it in its post-trial motions.
        See, e.g., Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th
        Cir. 2001). A recent Supreme Court decision has made clear, how-
        ever, that arguments denied at summary judgment are appealable
        after a trial on the merits if they raise “purely legal issues.” See
        Dupree, 143 S. Ct. at 1389 (holding that “[w]hile factual issues ad-
        dressed in summary-judgment denials are unreviewable on appeal,
        the same is not true of purely legal issues -- that is, issues that can
        be resolved without reference to any disputed facts”). Purely legal
        issues raised at the summary-judgment stage are “unaffected by fu-
        ture developments in the case,” like the presentation of evidence at
        trial, so “there is no benefit to having a district court reexamine”
USCA11 Case: 21-13496     Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 24 of 26

        24                     Opinion of the Court                 21-13496

        them after a trial. Id. Thus, following Dupree, purely legal issues
        need only appear in a pretrial Rule 56 motion for this Court to con-
        sider them, while fact-bound arguments still must be preserved in
        a Rule 50 motion at trial. Id.
               That said, we will not consider the district court’s denial of
        summary judgment here. At every step along the way, Southern-
        Owners has neglected to make its case that its policy exclusion de-
        fense is a purely legal issue. And, needless to say, this is an argu-
        ment that it should have squarely raised, especially since the dis-
        tinction between a fact and legal question is “vexing,” Pullman-
        Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 288 (1982), and it is up to the ap-
        pellate courts to decide on what side of the line an issue falls, see
        Dupree, 143 S. Ct. at 1390–91.
                As the record reflects, Southern-Owners first argued that a
        policy provision excluded coverage for the bodily injury that Guth-
        rie suffered at the summary judgment stage in district court. But
        in its memorandum in district court, Southern-Owners did not
        claim that this issue was purely legal. Instead, it relied on facts to
        establish that “Guthrie was an employee of Ernest Guthrie, LLC,
        acting in the course and scope of his employment with Ernest
        Guthrie, LLC” and that “Ernest Guthrie, LLC is the Named Insured
        on the” policy. In its response, American Builders disputed that the
        facts supported a finding that the exclusion precluded coverage,
        while also arguing that Florida precedent barred the defense as a
        matter of law. After summary judgment was denied, the case went
        to trial, and, notably, Southern-Owners never re-raised the
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 25 of 26

        21-13496                Opinion of the Court                        25

        argument in its post-trial motions for a judgment as a matter of law
        or for a new trial. Because the issue potentially relied on facts in
        dispute at summary judgment, it was presumptively unappealable
        without being re-raised in district court in a Rule 50 motion. See
        Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 184 (2011) (explaining that an order
        denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits typically
        is not appealable because “the full record developed in court super-
        sedes the record existing at the time of the summary-judgment mo-
        tion”).
                On appeal, Southern-Owners raised the merits of the cover-
        age defense, but it never offered any explanation for how the denial
        of the defense was appealable. By failing to adequately explain in
        its opening brief what made its defense a purely legal one, the ar-
        gument that it is appealable “is deemed abandoned and its merits
        will not be addressed.” Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
        385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Southern-Owners
        did not raise the argument in its reply brief -- although we have
        long recognized that raising it at that time would have been too
        late anyway. See, e.g., Bank of Am., N.A. v. Mukamai (In re Egidi),
        571 F.3d 1156, 1163 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Arguments . . . raised for the
        first time in the reply brief are deemed waived.”).
                Then, Southern-Owners appeared before this Court at oral
        argument, and, once again, it failed to proactively assert that its
        coverage defense was appealable. Oral Argument at 0:16–13:53.
        Not until in its rebuttal argument did Southern-Owners maintain -
        - for the first time -- that its defense was a purely legal one. Id. at
USCA11 Case: 21-13496      Document: 52-1      Date Filed: 06/20/2023     Page: 26 of 26

        26                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13496

        24:50–27:45. And even then, it did so only after the panel pointed
        out that denials of summary judgment are usually not appealable
        after a merits trial. Id. at 24:33–24:50. In any event, it did not pre-
        serve the issue by waiting to raise it at oral argument. Hernandez
        v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 15 F.4th 1321, 1330 (11th Cir. 2021)
        (“We do not consider arguments raised for the first time at oral
        argument.”).
               Finally, in its motion for rehearing, Southern-Owners of-
        fered a fully developed argument for why the denial of summary
        judgment was appealable in this Court. This last-gasp attempt,
        however, came far too late. United States v. Pipkins, 412 F.3d 1251,
        1253 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“We have a long-standing rule
        that we will not consider issues that were argued for the first time
        in a petition for rehearing.”).
               All told, Southern-Owners failed to make the case that we
        should hear this issue. Without a timely argument that the defense
        raised an appealable legal issue, we decline to reach the merits.
               AFFIRMED.