Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Katherine Martinez v. GEICO Casualty Company
Katherine Martinez v. GEICO Cas. Co., No. 24-10641, UP11142780 (11th Cir. Sept. 23, 2025)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2025-09-23
- Topic
- litigation
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 1 of 29 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10641 ____________________ KATHERINE MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEICO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-20219-KMW ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. LAGOA, CIRCUIT JUDGE: Katherine Martinez appeals the entry of summary judg- ment for GEICO Casualty Insurance Co. (“GEICO”) on her claim for bad faith under Florida law. Martinez, along with several oth- ers, was severely injured in a three-vehicle car collision while riding USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 2 of 29 2 Opinion of the Court 24-10641 as a passenger in her friend’s SUV.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Katherine Martinez v. GEICO Casualty Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 1 of 29
FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10641
____________________
KATHERINE MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEICO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-20219-KMW
____________________
Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
LAGOA, CIRCUIT JUDGE:
Katherine Martinez appeals the entry of summary judg-
ment for GEICO Casualty Insurance Co. (“GEICO”) on her claim
for bad faith under Florida law. Martinez, along with several oth-
ers, was severely injured in a three-vehicle car collision while riding
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 2 of 29
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
as a passenger in her friend’s SUV. Diana Guevara, the driver of
the truck that struck the SUV, was insured by GEICO. Guevara’s
insurance policy provided bodily-injury coverage up to $10,000 per
person, but no more than $20,000 total per accident. Upon receiv-
ing notice of the claim, GEICO flagged a potential coverage issue,
as Guevara’s truck was not listed as a covered vehicle on her insur-
ance policy. GEICO investigated the coverage issue over the next
several weeks and, upon identifying the victims of the crash, re-
quested medical information from them to guide its assessment of
their injuries.
Thirty-two days after receiving notice of the claim—and be-
fore GEICO had resolved the coverage issue—GEICO informed
the crash victims that it had tendered the full $20,000 coverage limit
to resolve all claims at a global settlement conference. GEICO pro-
posed that sum be split evenly between Martinez and another pas-
senger. Martinez rejected GEICO’s tender offer and instead elected
to sue Guevara in state court for the full amount of her damages.
After nearly nine years of litigation in state court, Guevara and
Martinez reached a stipulated final judgment for $2,000,000. Gue-
vara then assigned her outstanding claims against GEICO to Mar-
tinez, who, in turn, sued GEICO in federal court to recover the ex-
cess judgment, alleging one count of bad faith.
The district court entered summary judgment for GEICO
on that claim, adopting the magistrate judge’s finding that “GEICO
did not, as a matter of law, act in bad faith.” Martinez appeals that
ruling, arguing that the “totality” of the evidence, when viewed in
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 3 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 3
the light most favorable to her, would allow a reasonable jury to
infer that GEICO acted in bad faith by delaying its investigation of
Guevara’s claim and its tender of the policy limit to her. After care-
ful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the
district court’s order granting summary judgment.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2009, Roxanne Morina was driving her
mother’s Ford Expedition (the “SUV”) southbound on Krome Ave-
nue in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Morina had five passengers in
the SUV: Katherine Martinez, Stacy Puerto, Yanitza Morales,
Lisandra Morales, and Stephanie Mejia (collectively, the “SUV Vic-
tims”). As Morina was making a U-turn, her SUV was rear-ended
by a pickup driven by Rene Gonzalez Carranza. The impact caused
the SUV to spin into the northbound lane of Krome Avenue. The
SUV was then struck by a northbound truck driven by Diana Gue-
vara. Several of the SUV Victims suffered injuries; Mejia and Mar-
tinez’s injuries were severe enough that they needed to be airlifted
to the hospital.
On February 18, Guevara notified GEICO of the accident.
Guevara’s insurance policy with GEICO provided bodily-injury
coverage up to $10,000 per person, but no more than $20,000 per
accident. 1 Upon receiving notice, GEICO assigned the liability
claim to its adjuster, Natalie Orive. Greg Santini, a claims manager
1 We refer to these as the “individual-coverage limit” and the “aggregate-cov-
erage limit,” respectively.
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 4 of 29
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
for GEICO, immediately identified a potential coverage issue, as
the truck that Guevara was driving at the time of the accident was
not listed on her insurance policy. Santini instructed Orive to ob-
tain a copy of the police report confirming the details of the loss,
to notify Guevara of the coverage issue and possibility of excess
damages, and to contact Guevara’s attorney to discuss the claim.
Orive called Guevara’s attorney’s office and spoke with his
assistant later that day. The assistant informed Orive that at least
two of the SUV Victims were airlifted to the hospital and that he
believed Guevara was not at fault for the accident. Orive told the
assistant about the potential coverage issue and the possibility that
the claims could exceed the coverage limits. Orive also spoke to
Carranza’s attorney, who advised Orive that Guevara collided with
Morina and Carranza, and that Carranza may have sustained sev-
eral injuries in the crash.
On February 19, Orive received a letter from Carranza’s at-
torney with an exchange-of-information form attached. The form
identified Carranza, Morina, and Guevara as the parties involved in
the accident, and noted that Morina had been cited for careless driv-
ing. Orive then contacted Morina and Carranza’s insurance carri-
ers, Bristol West and State Farm, respectively. Orive learned no
new information from State Farm. However, Bristol West’s repre-
sentative told Orive that it had learned from Javier Cruz, Guevara’s
partner, that Guevara purchased the truck on the day of the acci-
dent, that Morina’s SUV did not have its lights on at the time of the
crash, and that Morina had supposedly admitted fault for the
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 5 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 5
accident. Orive tried to call Morina to confirm these details, but
she did not answer, and her voicemail inbox was full. Orive then
opened “bodily injury features” for the SUV Victims in the elec-
tronic claims system. GEICO also sent Guevara two letters on Feb-
ruary 19: a “reservation of rights” letter noting that the truck she
was driving may not be covered by her insurance policy, and a “bod-
ily injury excess” letter, which explained the policy’s coverage lim-
its, the possibility that the claims could exceed those limits, her
right to contribute personal funds to any claims made against her,
and her right to retain an attorney to protect her interest in excess
of the policy limits.
On February 20, Santini (the claims manager) instructed
Orive to retrieve the bill of sale for Guevara’s truck to resolve the
coverage issue. The following day, a Saturday, Orive tasked a
GEICO field representative with obtaining the police report from
the crash, so GEICO could learn the identities of the SUV Victims
and the details of the incident. The field representative acknowl-
edged the assignment on February 23, the next business day.
GEICO received the police report, which was dated Febru-
ary 12, 2009 (the day of the crash), on March 5. From reviewing
the police report, GEICO was able to identify each of the victims
and learn that Martinez, Mejia, Yanitza Morales, Puerto, and Gue-
vara suffered “incapacitating” injuries. The police report also con-
firmed that Morina was cited for careless driving.
By March 6, GEICO still had not received the bill of sale
from the seller of Guevara’s truck. Accordingly, GEICO conducted
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 6 of 29
6 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
a database search for information on the truck in furtherance of
resolving the coverage issue. The search indicated that the truck
was registered to a private owner in Hialeah, Florida. Eight days
later, on March 14, Orive reached out to Guevara’s attorney re-
questing proof of purchase for the truck.
Although the coverage issued had not been resolved, GEICO
referred the case to outside counsel on March 14 to arrange a global
settlement conference. That same day, GEICO sent each of the
SUV Victims a letter explaining that the most GEICO could pay for
an individual claim was $10,000 and no more than $20,000 for all
claims presented, and that GEICO was attempting to resolve all
claims within the available policy limits. The letter also asked the
SUV Victims to attend a global settlement conference and to sub-
mit medical documentation to guide GEICO’s assessment of the
injuries.
To further investigate the extent of those injuries, GEICO
sent a field representative to conduct personal interviews with the
SUV Victims or their families on March 18. From these visits,
GEICO learned that Martinez was still in the hospital and would
need eight surgeries after sustaining severe injuries to her right leg,
right knee, and pelvis; that Mejia was hospitalized for seven days
following the accident and received treatment for a lacerated
spleen, a forehead laceration that required 27 stitches, a fractured
pelvis, and internal bleeding; that Lisandra Morales suffered exten-
sive bruising on her right shoulder but did not sustain any fractures;
and that Yanitza Morales was hospitalized following the accident,
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 7 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 7
and suffered a fractured right clavicle and a forehead laceration that
required seven stitches.
On March 19, GEICO’s general counsel instructed that
$20,000—the aggregate-coverage limit—be set aside for a global
settlement conference. GEICO also learned that day that State
Farm (Carranza’s insurer) had decided to tender Martinez the
$10,000 individual-coverage limit under Carranza’s insurance pol-
icy and reserve the remaining $10,000 for a global settlement. And
on March 22—thirty-two days after receiving notice of the claim—
GEICO informed the SUV Victims that it had tendered the full
$20,000 to resolve all claims at the global settlement conference.
GEICO also advised the SUV Victims that it had to obtain new
counsel “[d]ue to a conflict of representation,” and that GEICO’s
counsel would be in touch to schedule the settlement conference.
In the meantime, GEICO continued to investigate the extent
of the SUV Victims’ injuries. On March 25, an adjuster spoke with
Yanitza and Lisandra Morales’s mother, who informed GEICO that
she wanted to make sure her daughters’ medical bills were paid and
that she believed Martinez had suffered the most severe injuries.
The adjuster also spoke with Puerto’s mother, who said that Puerto
was being treated for injuries to her knee. GEICO finally received
a letter from the seller of Guevara’s truck on April 1, which con-
firmed that Guevara purchased the truck on the day of the acci-
dent, meaning it was covered under her insurance policy.
The global settlement conference was originally scheduled
for April 23 but had to be reset due to a scheduling conflict with
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 8 of 29
8 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
Mejia’s counsel. On April 16, GEICO received a letter from Mi-
chael Olin, Martinez’s new attorney, who requested that GEICO
provide him with mandatory disclosures pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.4137
“within thirty . . . days.” GEICO sent him those disclo-
sures within the same day.
The parties held the global settlement conference on April
30. At the conference, GEICO determined that the $20,000 aggre-
gate-coverage limit would be split evenly between Mejia and Mar-
tinez, with each receiving the individual-coverage limit. GEICO
delivered the tender offers to Mejia and Martinez’s respective attor-
neys with an accompanying release later that day. While Mejia ac-
cepted the tender, Martinez’s attorney informed GEICO that he
“need[ed] to review the file and events since the crash” before de-
termining whether Martinez would accept the offer. GEICO sent
Martinez’s counsel the requested information two weeks later.
After nearly five months of consideration, Martinez rejected
the tender offer on September 23, 2009. In her view, GEICO knew
prior to April 30 that Martinez’s injuries were far more significant
than the policy limits covered, and that Guevara was liable for the
accident, indicating that GEICO delayed settlement negotiations in
bad faith. Olin would later state that he was interested in pursuing
a bad-faith claim on behalf of Martinez from “the very beginning”
and that he attended the global settlement conference “to deter-
mine whether GEICO had acted in bad faith[.]”
Martinez then sued Guevara, Morina, and Morina’s mother
(who owned the SUV) for negligence in Florida state court. The
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 9 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 9
state-court action remained pending for the next eight years. Over
that period, Martinez made several demands to settle the case, re-
questing that GEICO either pay her in excess of the policy limits or
allow Guevara to stipulate to an excess final judgment. Although
GEICO initially rejected Martinez’s settlement proposals, GEICO
finally granted Guevara permission to enter into a stipulated final
judgment of $2,000,000 on April 2, 2018. The court confirmed the
stipulated final judgment award on October 5, 2018. Guevara then
assigned to Martinez her right to pursue any claims against GEICO
to recover the excess judgment.
On January 19, 2023, Martinez sued GEICO in the U.S. Dis-
trict Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging one count
of bad faith under Florida law. According to Martinez, the delays
in investigating and settling the claim amounted to a breach of
GEICO’s duty of good faith to its insured and caused the $2,000,000
excess judgment to be entered against Guevara. After the close of
discovery, GEICO moved for summary judgment, arguing that
“no reasonable jury could conclude that GEICO acted in bad faith
in its handling of Martinez’s bodily injury claim against Guevara.”
The district court referred that motion to the magistrate judge for
a report and recommendation.
The magistrate judge recommended that summary judg-
ment be entered in favor of GEICO, finding that Martinez failed to
submit sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer
GEICO’s bad faith. Martinez objected to that recommendation.
Upon de novo review, the district court adopted the report and
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 10 of 29
10 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
recommendation in full and entered final judgment for GEICO.2
Martinez timely appealed that judgment.
While this appeal was pending, we sua sponte raised the issue
that Martinez did not adequately plead the citizenship of the parties
to establish federal diversity jurisdiction. This prompted Martinez
to file a motion for leave to amend her complaint on appeal. We
denied that motion and remanded to the district court for the lim-
ited purposes of determining the citizenship of the parties and
whether diversity jurisdiction existed. On remand, the district
court allowed Martinez to amend her complaint by interlineation
and found that the amended complaint pleaded sufficient facts to
establish diversity jurisdiction. The district court then returned the
case to this Court for review on the merits.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary
judgment, viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable infer-
ences in favor of the nonmoving party. Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry.
Co., 692 F.3d 1151, 1154
(11th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is
appropriate when a movant shows that there is “no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material
2 As the district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, we at-
tribute the reasoning in the magistrate judge’s report to the district court, see
15A Chas. A Wright & A.R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3901.1 (3d
ed. 2025), and refer to the “district court” when addressing Martinez’s chal-
lenges to the report.
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 11 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 11
fact exists when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Qui v. Thomas Cnty.
Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 1227, 1235
(11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247
(1986)).
III. ANALYSIS
The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the district
court erred in granting summary judgment to GEICO on Mar-
tinez’s claim for bad faith.
Florida law “imposes a fiduciary obligation on an insurer to
protect its insured from a judgment that exceeds the limits of the
insured’s policy.” Harvey v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 259 So. 3d 1, 6
(Fla.
2018). 3 “[B]ecause the insured ‘has surrendered to the insurer all
control over the handling of the claim, including all decisions with
regard to litigation and settlement, . . . the insurer must assume a
duty to exercise such control and make such decisions in good faith
and with due regard for the interests of the insured.’” Id.
(quoting
Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785
(Fla.
1980)). Under this duty of good faith, insurers generally:
have obligations to advise the insured of settlement
opportunities, to advise as to the probable outcome
3 Although the duty of good faith “is one that the insurer owes to the insured[,]
. . . Florida law authorizes a cause of action by which the victim . . . can sue
the insurer directly for its bad-faith failure to settle on the insured’s behalf.”
Eres v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 998 F.3d 1273, 1278
(11th Cir. 2021) (first citing
Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785
(Fla. 1980); then citing
Thompson v. Com. Union Ins. Co. of N.Y., 250 So. 2d 259, 264
(Fla. 1971)).
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 12 of 29
12 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
of the litigation, to warn of the possibility of an ex-
cess judgment, and to advise the insured of any steps
he might take to avoid the same, as well as to investi-
gate the facts, give fair consideration to a settlement
offer that is not unreasonable under the facts, and set-
tle, if possible, where a reasonably prudent person,
faced with the prospect of paying the total recovery,
would do so.
Ilias v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 61 F.4th 1338, 1344
(11th Cir. 2023)
(quotation omitted). These obligations, however, “are not a mere
checklist,” and “[a]n insurer is not absolved of liability simply be-
cause it advises its insured of settlement opportunities, the proba-
ble outcome of the litigation, and the possibility of an excess judg-
ment.” Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 7
. Rather, the “critical inquiry” in as-
sessing bad faith is whether, under the “totality of the circum-
stances,” the insurer “diligently, and with the same haste and preci-
sion as if it were in the insured’s shoes, worked on the insured’s
behalf to avoid an excess judgment.” Id.
(quotation omitted).
To prevail on a bad-faith claim, a plaintiff must prove “(1)
bad faith conduct by the insurer, which (2) causes an excess judg-
ment to be entered against the insured.” Ilias, 61 F.4th at 1344
(cit-
ing Perera v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 35 So. 3d 893, 899
(Fla.
2010)). Florida courts generally treat the existence of bad faith as
“a question of fact for the jury.” Campbell v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 306 So. 2d 525, 530
(Fla. 1974) (collecting cases). Summary judgment
is appropriate, however, if “there is no sufficient evidence from
which any reasonable jury could have concluded that there was bad
faith on the part of the insurer.” Eres v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 998
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 13 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 13 F.3d 1273, 1278
(11th Cir. 2021) (alteration adopted) (first citing Bos-
ton Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785
; then citing Mesa v. Clarendon Nat’l
Ins. Co., 799 F.3d 1353
, 1359–60 (11th Cir. 2015)).
On appeal, Martinez advances theories of bad faith based on
GEICO’s purported delays in investigating the claim and initiating
settlement negotiations, as well as its refusal to settle the claim
once the state-court litigation had begun. We first address the suf-
ficiency of Martinez’s evidence as to each theory. To assuage any
concern that we have evaluated GEICO’s conduct against a “mere
checklist,” Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 7
, 4 we then consider whether that
evidence would allow a reasonable jury to infer from the totality
of the circumstances that GEICO acted in bad faith.
At the heart of an insurer’s duty of good faith is its obliga-
tion to “diligently, and with the same haste and precision as if it
were in the insured’s shoes, work[ ] on the insured’s behalf to avoid
an excess judgment.” Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 7
. To comply with this
duty, an insurer “must investigate the facts . . . and settle, if possi-
ble, where a reasonably prudent person, faced with the prospect of
paying the total recovery, would do so.” Id.
(citations omitted).
4 Much of Martinez’s opening brief is devoted to criticizing the district court
for following a “checklist” approach in its analysis. Such criticism is misplaced.
The district court correctly articulated that bad faith is “determined under the
totality of the circumstances standard” and drew its conclusions based on the
record “as a whole.” That it organized its analysis into logical subheadings
concerning GEICO’s investigation, communications with the insured, and ef-
forts to minimize the likelihood of an excess judgment does not mean that it
considered such conduct in a vacuum.
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 14 of 29
14 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
Because investigatory delays can stall the settlement of the claim—
thereby increasing the likelihood of an excess judgment against the
insured—“[b]ad faith may be inferred from a delay in settlement
negotiations which is willful and without reasonable cause.” Powell
v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 584 So. 2d 12, 14
(Fla. 3d DCA
1991) (citing 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1408 (1946)). And “[w]here liabil-
ity is clear, and injuries so serious that a judgment in excess of the
policy limits is likely, an insurer has an affirmative duty to initiate
settlement negotiations.” Id. (citations omitted).
Here, Martinez argues that GEICO’s bad faith can be reason-
ably inferred from its purported delays in investigating and settling
the claim, asserting that GEICO “prioritized the coverage investi-
gation to minimize its own exposure, as opposed to evaluating the
potential claims against its insured,” and improperly withheld its
settlement offer despite knowing the severity of Martinez’s inju-
ries. We assess the materiality of these purported delays in investi-
gating and settling the claim in turn, recognizing that each “is
merely one factor to be considered” when determining bad faith
under the totality of the circumstances. Id.
A. The Timing of GEICO’s Investigation
Martinez argues that GEICO’s bad faith can be inferred
from its failure to timely investigate the claim, pointing to its delays
in receiving the police report and in contacting the SUV Victims
once it had obtained the report. Martinez is correct that GEICO
did not review the police report for “over two weeks after receiving
notice of the crash.” But that gap in time alone tells us little about
the reasonableness of GEICO’s conduct here. See Clauss v. Fortune
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 15 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 15
Ins. Co., 523 So. 2d 1777
, 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). It is undisputed
that on February 18—the same day GEICO received notice of the
claim—Santini instructed Orive to obtain a copy of the police re-
port. Orive then tasked a field representative with retrieving the
report on February 21, and the representative acknowledged the
assignment the following business day. By promptly querying the
police report, GEICO proceeded with “the same degree of care and
diligence” as it would “in the management of his own business.”
Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785
(citing Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v.
Shaw, 184 So. 852
(Fla. 1938)); cf. Mesa,799 F.3d at 1359
(declining
to find bad faith where insurer “immediately opened a claim file”
upon receiving notice and “[w]ithin four days, . . . hired [a claims
administrator] to conduct an investigation and adjust any potential
claims”).
Moreover, Martinez offers no evidence that could lead a rea-
sonable jury to believe that GEICO “willfull[y]” impeded the field
representative’s ability to retrieve the report over those two weeks.
Powell, 584 So. 2d at 14
; see also Harvey,259 So. 3d at 9
(finding bad
faith where adjuster “was a considerable impediment” to the
prompt settlement of the claim). The bare fact of this gap in time
may “show some negligence” on GEICO’s part—but that is not
enough to establish that GEICO delayed its investigation in bad
faith. Eres, 998 F.3d at 1281
. Although an insurer’s negligence can
be “relevant to the question of [bad] faith,” negligence “is not the
standard.” Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 9
(quoting Boston Old Colony,386 So. 2d at 785
); see also DeLaune v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,314 So. 2d 601, 603
(Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (While “evidence of negligence may be
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 16 of 29
16 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
considered by the jury as it may bear on the question of bad faith,
a cause of action based solely on negligence which does not rise to
the level of bad faith does not lie.”). We have long recognized that
a claim based only on evidence of negligence cannot survive the
federal summary-judgment standard. 5 See Eres, 998 F.3d at 1281
;
Mesa, 799 F.3d at 1360
; see also Hutcherson v. Progressive Corp.,984 F.2d 1152, 1155
(11th Cir. 1993) (“Although this is a diversity action
and [Florida] state law therefore provides the controlling
5 Harvey does not (and cannot) abrogate this federal procedural rule. When
Harvey was decided, “Florida place[d] a higher burden [than federal courts] on
a party moving for summary judgment,” Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 10
n.2, requiring
the movant to “show conclusively that no material issues remain for trial,”
Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601, 604
(Fla. 1966); see also In re Amends. to Fla.
Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510 (In re Amends. II), 317 So. 3d 72
, 75–76 (Fla. 2021) (later
amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to conform with federal sum-
mary-judgment standard). Harvey explicitly recognized that “federal
case[s], . . . ‘to the extent . . . [they] permit summary judgment based on Fed-
eral Rule of Civil Procedure 56 . . . are of limited precedential value in Florida
summary judgment cases’” adjudicated in state court precisely because we ap-
plied a more movant-friendly standard. Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 10
n.2 (alteration
adopted) (quoting Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So. 2d 921
, 923–24 (Fla. 4th DCA
2007)). Accordingly, while evidence of negligence might be enough to yield a
triable issue in state court, it is insufficient to create the “inference of bad faith”
required to survive summary judgment under Rule 56. Eres, 998 F.3d at 1281
.
Moreover, now that the Florida Supreme Court has adopted the fed-
eral summary judgment standard as the standard for Florida state summary
judgment proceedings, In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510 (In re Amends.
I), 309 So. 3d 192
(Fla. 2020), and subsequently adopted the text of the federal
summary judgment rule itself as Florida’s rule, In re Amends. II, 317 So. 3d at
72, we are doubtful that the distinction drawn by Harvey remains viable.
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 17 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 17
substantive law, federal law governs the sufficiency of the evidence
necessary to preclude a grant of summary judgment.” (citations
omitted)). Therefore, GEICO’s delay in obtaining the police report
cannot alone sustain a finding of bad faith.
Martinez also faults GEICO for not contacting the SUV Vic-
tims sooner after receiving the police report, maintaining that
GEICO initially focused on the coverage investigation “to protect
its own interests.” But she fails to offer any competent evidence to
support that inference as well. Given an insurer’s dual mandate to
act with both ordinary “care and diligence,” Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 9
(emphasis added), an insurer is allowed “to make a reasonable eval-
uation of the case” before making a settlement offer. DeLaune, 314 So. 2d at 602
; see also Boston Old Colony,386 So. 2d at 785
(noting
insurer’s duty includes obligation to “investigate the facts”). And
where, as here, coverage is disputed, the insurer is also allowed rea-
sonable time “to make a thorough investigation to determine
whether there is coverage under its policy of insurance.” Caldwell
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 453 So. 2d 1187, 1191
(Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
GEICO, upon realizing that Guevara’s truck may not have
been covered by her policy, was required to “resolve the coverage
dispute promptly or in such a way as to limit any potential preju-
dice” to her. Pozzi Window Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins., 446 F.3d 1178, 1188
(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet,
658 So. 2d 55, 63
(Fla. 1995)). Within the first few weeks of the
investigation, GEICO took several steps to assess coverage, includ-
ing instructing its claim adjuster to procure the bill of sale for the
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 18 of 29
18 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
truck, speaking to Guevara’s partner about when she purchased the
truck, and querying the truck’s registration on a vehicle database.
When those efforts failed to provide a clear answer as to the truck’s
ownership, GEICO took the additional step of requesting proof of
purchase from Guevara’s attorney. And—despite having not yet
received either the bill of sale or the proof of purchase it re-
quested—GEICO elected to set aside the aggregate-coverage limit
for settlement negotiations on March 19, which was thirty days af-
ter receiving notice of the claim and identifying the coverage issue.
We recognize, of course, that “each bad faith case ‘is deter-
mined on its own facts.’” Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 8
(quoting Berges v.
Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665, 680
(Fla. 2004)). But here, the un-
disputed facts show that GEICO pursued its investigation with the
requisite “diligence and thoroughness,” Am. Builders Ins. Co. v. S.-
Owners Ins. Co., 71 F.4th 847, 856
(11th Cir. 2023) (quotation omit-
ted), by promptly making a settlement offer even when coverage
remained uncertain, see Pozzi, 446 F.3d at 1188
(noting that “efforts
made by the insurer to settle the liability claim in the face of the
coverage dispute” undercut a finding of bad faith). We cannot say
GEICO failed to act “with due regard for the interests of the in-
sured” by putting Guevara’s interest in reaching a settlement above
its own incentive to avoid paying out potentially uncovered claims.
Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785
(citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Davis, 412 F.2d 475
(5th Cir. 1969)).
Resisting this conclusion, Martinez argues that a jury could
nonetheless infer bad faith from GEICO’s investigatory delays
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 19 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 19
because GEICO violated its internal policy to “contact the claim-
ant, or a member of his or her family, as soon as possible after the
assignment unless circumstances make it impossible.” Such con-
duct, however, is not enough to show bad faith as a matter of law.
Though “Florida law . . . recognizes that the violation of a party’s
internal policies can be evidence of its negligence,” 50 State Sec.
Serv., Inc. v. Giangrandi, 132 So. 3d 1128, 1134
(Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
(citations omitted), negligence, as we have said, “is not the stand-
ard,” Pelaez v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 13 F.4th 1243, 1251
(11th Cir.
2021) (quoting Harvey, 259 So. 3d at 9
), and a bad-faith claim “can-
not be sustained [solely] upon the theory of negligence,” Am. Fidel-
ity & Cas. Co. v. Greyhound Corp., 232 F.2d 89, 93
(5th Cir. 1956) (Tut-
tle, J.) (quoting Auto Mut. Indem. Co. v. Shaw, 184 So. 852, 859
(Fla.
1938)). Since Martinez has flagged no additional evidence on the
extent to which GEICO’s own policies reflect the standard of “care
and prudence” it owes to its insured, Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785
; cf. L.A. Fitness Int’l, LLC v. Mayer,980 So. 2d 550, 558
(Fla. 4th
DCA 2008) (noting “the custom and practice of an industry can
help define a standard of care a party must exercise”), a reasonable
jury would have no basis to infer bad faith from GEICO’s noncom-
pliance with its own timing policies, even if we assume that non-
compliance was negligent. Martinez has therefore not met her
summary-judgment burden of “show[ing] that a genuine issue re-
mains for trial” on this issue. United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop.
in Greene & Tuscaloosa Cntys., 941 F.2d 1428
, 1438 (11th Cir. 1991)
(first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); then citing Chanel, Inc. v. Italian Ac-
tivewear, Inc., 931 F.2d 1472
, 1477 (11th Cir. 1991)).
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 20 of 29
20 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
B. The Timing of GEICO’s Settlement Offer
Martinez also contends that GEICO’s bad faith can be in-
ferred from its purported delay in initiating settlement negotia-
tions. Specifically, Martinez asserts that GEICO acted in bad faith
by failing to tender the $20,000 aggregate-coverage limit for a
global settlement before March 22, 2009, and by not offering her
the $10,000 individual-coverage limit before the global settlement
conference. Recall that “[w]here liability is clear, and injuries [are]
so serious that a judgment in excess of the policy limits is likely, an
insurer has an affirmative duty to initiate settlement negotiations.”
Powell, 584 So. 2d at 14
. That is because, under such circumstances,
“the financial exposure to the insured acts as a ‘ticking financial
time bomb’ and ‘[a]ny delay in making an offer . . . even where
there was no assurance that the claim could be settled could be
viewed by a fact finder as evidence of bad faith.’” Kinsale Ins. Co. v.
Pride of St. Lucie Lodge 1189, Inc., 135 F.4th 961, 969
(11th Cir. 2025)
(quoting Goheagan v. Am. Vehicle Ins. Co., 107 So. 3d 433, 439
(Fla.
4th DCA 2012)).
Here, Martinez has submitted competent evidence demon-
strating that GEICO knew early on it was likely the damages sus-
tained from the crash would exceed the policy limits: GEICO
learned on the same day it received notice of the claim that there
were six people in Morina’s SUV—two of whom had to be airlifted
to the hospital—and promptly advised Guevara “of the possibility
of claims exceeding the applicable coverage limits.” As such,
GEICO’s affirmative duty to initiate settlement discussions at that
time turns on whether a reasonable jury could also find that
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 21 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 21
liability was clear “based on what the insurer knew at the time, as
well as what the insurer reasonably should have known.” Kinsale,
135 F.4th at 969
(citing Delancy v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,947 F.2d 1536, 1545
(11th Cir. 1991)).
In Kinsale, we explained that when referencing “clear liabil-
ity” “Florida’s courts have provided guidance about the meaning of
the word ‘clear’ by using the synonym ‘obvious.’” Id.
(first citing
Powell, 584 So. 2d at 14
; then citing Goheagan,107 So. 3d at 438
). To
construe those terms, we referenced numerous dictionary defini-
tions—ranging from “easily discovered, seen, or understood” to
“plain and evident to the mind; perfectly clear or manifest; plainly
distinguishable; clearly visible,” id.
at 969–70 (alteration adopted)
(first quoting Obvious, Merriam-Webster Dictionary,
https://perma.cc/E7L4-A2SY; then quoting Obvious, Oxford English
Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/obvious_adj)—and
situated those definitions among “fact patterns” from Florida cases
“where liability could be described as obvious,” such as where the
insured “was intoxicated,” “was evaluated at ‘80-100%’ liability,” or
ran a stop sign, id. at 970 (first citing Berges, 896 So. 2d at 669, 681
;
then citing Goheagan, 107 So. 3d at 436, 439
; then citing Powell,584 So. 2d at 13
; and then citing Robinson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
583 So. 2d 1063, 1064, 1069
(Fla. 5th DCA 1991)). And we clarified
that we did not “understand the question to be whether the in-
sured’s liability is 100% guaranteed,” but rather whether a jury
could “reasonably find” that liability was clear.
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 22 of 29
22 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
Kinsale is instructive on this standard’s application as well.
There, the majority ultimately rejected the insurer’s argument that
“evidence uncovered during the investigation made liability un-
clear as a matter of law” because each of the insurer’s bases for
challenging liability—i.e., the location and timing of the incident,
a lack of causation, and that the victim had been consuming alco-
hol—was either “directly contradicted” by record evidence or im-
material under Florida premises-liability law. Id.
at 974–75. Once
those factual disputes were resolved in favor of the insured, the
court determined that a jury could “reasonably find that liability
was clear” under that view of the evidence. Id.
at 972–75.
Our case materially differs from Kinsale because Kinsale does
not present the same coverage issue GEICO faced here. When an
insurer faces both “an affirmative duty to offer settlement” and a
coverage issue, it still must be allowed some opportunity “to re-
solve the coverage dispute promptly” or with the requisite “dili-
gence and thoroughness.” Am. Builders, 71 F.4th at 856
(quoting
Pozzi, 446 F.3d at 1188
). Otherwise, the insurer would be placed in
the “illogical and unfair . . . position of either paying what it be-
lieves to be an uncovered claim or being in jeopardy of a bad faith
judgment for failure to pay a claim.” Hiins v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., 894 So. 2d 5, 15
(Fla. 2004) (internal quotation omitted).
As we already said, GEICO pursued its coverage investigation dili-
gently and in good faith, making its settlement tender even before
receiving documentation regarding Guevara’s ownership of the
truck.
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 23 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 23
Moreover, we cannot say that Guevara’s liability was “free
from obscurity or ambiguity” even upon accepting Martinez’s ac-
count of the crash. Kinsale, 135 F.4th at 970
(quotation omitted). It
is undisputed that GEICO fielded conflicting opinions as to liability
for the multi-car crash including that Morina and not Guevara was
responsible for the accident. GEICO was thus allowed “to make a
reasonable evaluation” of liability before making a settlement offer.
DeLaune, 314 So. 2d at 603
. Martinez’s argument that GEICO de-
layed its tender of the aggregate-policy limit in bad faith thus fails.
Alternatively, Martinez attacks the propriety of the global
settlement conference itself. In her view, GEICO acted in bad faith
by waiting until the global settlement conference to tender her the
$10,000 individual-coverage limit, since GEICO knew long before
then that Martinez “had suffered greater injuries than everyone else
in the accident combined.” Given GEICO’s conversations with the
SUV Victims and their family members, a jury could reasonably in-
fer that GEICO knew prior to the April 30 settlement conference
that Martinez’s injuries were among the most severe. But that does
not mean GEICO was obligated to tender Martinez the individual-
coverage limit beforehand.
When faced with multiple claimants, an insurer has no obli-
gation to immediately pay out the policy limit to the most-injured
party. See Mesa, 799 F.3d at 1360
. In fact, the duty of good faith
prohibits the insurer from “indiscriminately settling selected claims
and leaving the insured at risk of excess judgments that could have
been minimized by wiser settlement practice,” and leaves how to
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 24 of 29
24 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
best approach “settlement and defense with regard to the multiple
claims” to the reasonable discretion of the insurer. Farinas v. Fla.
Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co., 850 So. 2d 555
, 560–61 (Fla. 4th DCA
2003)); see also Harmon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 232 So. 2d 206
, 207–08 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (finding global-settlement confer-
ence to be a reasonable strategy for settling multiple claims). Thus,
by withholding its distribution of the policy limits until the global
settlement conference, GEICO actually furthered its insured’s best
interests by structuring a settlement plan that would “minimize the
magnitude of possible excess judgments” against her. Farinas, 850 So. 2d at 561
.
Parrying, Martinez contends that the reasonableness of the
global settlement conference is undercut by our opinion in Ilias, a
case in which we rejected an insurer’s argument that “its delay in
tendering the policy was justified because [the plaintiff’s] claim was
not the only one arising out of the accident.” Ilias, 61 F.4th at 1346
.
But we did so only as a factual matter, not a rule of law: the insurer
in Ilias did not offer any evidence to indicate that anyone besides
the plaintiff was pursuing compensation for bodily injury. Id.
Here,
by contrast, the undisputed evidence shows there were “seven po-
tential claims” arising from the accident, with six victims ultimately
participating in the global settlement conference. Unlike the in-
surer in Ilias, GEICO clearly had a reasonable basis to believe it
needed “to get everyone in a room to see if [it] could settle all the
claims” in order to avoid an excess judgment. Farinas, 850 So. 2d at 561
. Accordingly, GEICO’s decision to withhold tendering the pol-
icy limits until the global settlement conference provides no
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 25 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 25
indication that it acted in bad faith. The undisputed record demon-
strates that GEICO’s decision to delay tendering Martinez’s indi-
vidual-coverage limit until the global settlement conference was
both reasonable and consistent with its duty to the insured. Mar-
tinez has thus failed to substantiate her claim of bad faith based on
the timing of GEICO’s settlement offer. We now address GEICO’s
post-offer conduct.
C. GEICO’s Post-Offer Conduct
Martinez also argues that bad faith can be found in GEICO’s
alleged “failure to consider, communicate, explain, negotiate, per-
mit, or accept” her post-litigation settlement offers. The duty of
good faith generally extends to an insurer’s “entire conduct in the
handling of the claim,” including during the derivative litigation
against the insured. Berges, 896 So. 2d at 672
. However, an insurer’s
obligation to “‘give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is
not unreasonable under the facts’ . . . [ends] ‘[o]nce it [is] clear that
[the claimant] [is] unwilling to settle’” within the policy limits and
agree to a full release. Contreras v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 927 So. 2d. 16, 21
(Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Boston Old Colony,386 So. 2d at 785
); see also Kropilak v. 21st Century Ins. Co.,806 F.3d 1062, 1070
(11th Cir. 2015) (“[A]n insurer owes . . . no duty to its insured to
enter into a consent judgment in excess of the limits of its policy.”).
Martinez concedes that GEICO was not “required to enter
into any agreement” with her after she rejected the tender offer.
She nonetheless maintains that GEICO’s failure to consider her of-
fers or “explain to its insured its reasons for rejecting them”
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 26 of 29
26 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
constitutes “admissible evidence” of bad faith that a jury may con-
sider as part of the totality of the circumstances. But while such
evidence may be “relevant to the question of [bad] faith” and ad-
missible at trial, Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785
; cf. Fed. R. Evid.
401, without more, it is insufficient as a matter of Florida law to
establish that GEICO’s “actions rose to the level of bad faith,” see
Mesa, 799 F.3d at 1360
. Seeing that Martinez raises no other com-
petent evidence indicating that GEICO’s post-tender conduct
amounted to bad faith, we conclude that no reasonable jury could
make that inference on this record. Because GEICO was not re-
quired to settle outside the policy limits, and did not otherwise act
in bad faith once the state litigation began, this circumstance can-
not sustain Martinez’s claim as a matter of law.
D. The Totality of the Circumstances
We now consider whether a reasonable jury could infer that
GEICO “failed to act in good faith with due regard for the interests
of the insured” under the “totality of the circumstances.” Harvey,
259 So. 3d at 7
(internal quotations omitted). Viewing the record
and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Martinez, we con-
clude that Martinez has failed to submit sufficient evidence of bad
faith as to any of the “circumstances to be weighed by the fact-
finder.” Kinsale, 135 F.4th at 969
n.1 (quoting Powell,584 So. 2d at 13
).
On these facts, GEICO’s conduct in investigating the claim,
initiating settlement negotiations, and refusing to settle for above
the policy limit fail to evince bad faith as a matter of law. And while
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 27 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 27
evidence of GEICO’s negligence in obtaining the police report and
contacting the claimants in violation of its own policies, as well as
its rejection of Martinez’s counteroffers, are “relevant to the ques-
tion of [bad] faith,” Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785
, those cir-
cumstances, even taken together, do not create an “inference of bad
faith,” Eres, 998 F.3d at 1281
; see also Harvey,259 So. 3d at 9
(“[N]eg-
ligence is not the standard.”)—and therefore are necessarily insuf-
ficient to overcome summary judgment under our federal stand-
ard. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252
(“The mere existence of a scintilla
of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient;
there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for
the plaintiff.”). Even under a totality-of-the-circumstances stand-
ard, no triable issue remains when “[t]here is no sufficient evidence
from which any reasonable jury could have concluded that there
was bad faith on the part of the insurer.” Boston Old Colony, 386 So. 2d at 785
. So too here.
In a final effort to save her claim, Martinez falls back on the
deposition testimony of her “claim-handling expert,” Lewis Jack,
which she asserts the district court erroneously “refused to even
consider” in evaluating the totality of the circumstances. Jack, an
insurance lawyer, testified on several aspects of the claim process,
including the timing of the tender, the propriety of the global set-
tlement, and GEICO’s post-offer conduct. For example, Jack testi-
fied that GEICO “violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing
regarding Kathy Martinez’s claim against GEICO’s insured, Diana
Guevara, by improperly delaying its tender of its bodily injury lia-
bility limits of $10,000 until April 30, 2009.” He also opined that
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 28 of 29
28 Opinion of the Court 24-10641
GEICO’s decision to hold a global settlement conference and post-
offer conduct was “inconsistent with” its duty of good faith.
Jack’s statement that “GEICO violated its duty of good
faith” is nothing more than a conclusory allegation, and thus lacks
any probative value at summary judgment. Evers v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 770 F.2d 984
, 986–87 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Merit Motors, Inc.
v. Chrysler Corp., 569 F.2d 666
, 672–73 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (noting Fed-
eral Rule of Evidence 703 “was not intended . . . to make summary
judgment impossible whenever a party has produced an expert to
support its position”). Moreover, whatever Jack’s views on the “le-
gal implications” of GEICO’s conduct are, they cannot displace this
Court’s conclusion that neither the manner of settlement nor
GEICO’s refusal to settle beyond the policy limit evinces bad faith
as a matter of law. Commodores Ent. Corp. v. McClary, 879 F.3d 1114, 1128
(11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Montgomery v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,
898 F.2d 1537, 1541
(11th Cir. 1990)); cf. Montgomery,898 F.2d at 1541
(“[The expert] testified that in his opinion [the insurer] had a
duty to hire tax counsel in this case. This was a legal conclusion,
and therefore should not have been admitted.” (internal citation
omitted)). As such, we conclude that Martinez has not identified
any “competent” evidence from Jack’s testimony suggesting bad
faith.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, no reasonable
jury could conclude that GEICO acted in bad faith in handling Gue-
vara’s insurance claim. Since “no reasonable jury could find bad
faith” on these facts, Martinez’s bad-faith claim fails as a matter of
USCA11 Case: 24-10641 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025 Page: 29 of 29
24-10641 Opinion of the Court 29
law. Eres, 988 F.3d at 1277. We thus conclude that the district court
did not err in concluding GEICO was entitled to summary judg-
ment.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s entry of
summary judgment for the Defendant GEICO.
AFFIRMED.