Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union , 361 F. App'x 986 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 22, 2010
No. 08-14824
JOHN LEY
________________________
ACTING CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-22180-CV-PCH
HERITAGE CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 22, 2010)
Before MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.
The Heritage Corporation of South Florida (“Heritage”) appeals the district
court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (“National Union”), Heritage’s insurer, and
American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”), National Union’s corporate parent,
on Heritage’s first-party bad-faith insurance action under section 624.155, Florida
Statutes. See Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
Pa., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2008). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the order de novo. See Brinson v.
Raytheon Co., 571 F.3d 1348, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Heritage submitted claims to National Union for losses of over $3,000,000
from employee fraud. National Union refused to pay, and Heritage sued. After a
jury trial, Heritage was awarded $55,310. Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. Nat’l Union
Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 01-3519, slip op. at 4–5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29,
2002). Heritage then brought this action under section 624.155, Florida Statutes,
alleging that National Union failed to settle the claims in good faith in violation of
subsection 624.155(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and committed unfair claim settlement
practices in violation of subsections 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c)–(g), Florida Statutes.
Heritage claims damages exceeding $5,000,000.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in this action
2
because, inter alia, National Union’s denial of the claims exceeding $3,000,000
was not in bad faith. The contractual amount due Heritage was found to be
$55,310. All of the evidence indicates that National Union could not have settled
Heritage’s claims for $55,310. Heritage has consistently claimed millions of
dollars in damages, and Heritage’s president testified in deposition that he did not
think he would have accepted less than $3,800,000 to settle the case. As there was
no evidence of a reasonable possibility that National Union could have settled the
claim for $55,310, National Union’s denial of Heritage’s significantly higher
demand of more than $3,000,000 was not in bad faith. See Conquest v. Auto-
Owners Ins. Co., 773 So. 2d 71, 72–74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (holding that a
third-party claimant could not recover for bad faith under sections 624.155 and
626.9541(1)(i)(3) against an insurer for rejecting her demand of $300,000, where
the claimant was awarded $130,800 after trial, because she presented no evidence
that pre-trial settlement was possible for less than $300,000).
In any event, the district court also correctly concluded that Heritage could
not recover because the damages exceeding $5,000,000 it now seeks were not
reasonably foreseeable. The only damages recoverable in a bad faith action are
“those damages which are a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation
of [section 624.155] by the authorized insurer,” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(8), and “the
3
natural, proximate, probable, or direct consequence of the insurer’s bad faith,”
Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Jones, 592 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 1992). “To recover against the
insurer, a Florida insured must produce evidence of . . . the causal connection
between [the insurer’s] bad faith and the damage sustained.” Cheek v. Agric. Ins.
Co. of Watertown, N.Y., 432 F.2d 1267, 1269 (5th Cir. 1970). Heritage has not
provided any evidence demonstrating that its losses exceeding $5,000,000 were a
reasonably foreseeable result of its insurer’s failure to settle a claim worth
$55,310. Indeed, Heritage’s own expert testified that failure to pay $55,310 did
not cause the $4,500,000 in losses he estimated that Heritage suffered. The
district court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment for National Union
and AIG. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4