WALKER
v.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A first-party bad-faith claim against an insurer is premature until the insured's underlying claim for insurance benefits is resolved favorably.
Plaintiff sued his insurer for underinsured motorist benefits and for bad faith in handling the claim. The insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith clai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Premature Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant Geico moves to dismiss Plaintiff Adam Walker’s bad-faith claim (Count II). Walker never responded to Geico’s motion, and the time to do so has now passed. See Local Rule 3.01(c). Walker’s complaint alleges that Geico is responsible for paying underinsured motorist benefits for an auto accident involving Walker (Count I). Walker further alleges that Geico failed to settle in good faith his benefits claim (Count II). Geico moves to dismiss Walker’s bad-faith claim, arguing that Walker’s bad-faith claim is premature because Geico has not been found liable under its underinsured motorist benefits policy. (Doc. 5). “[A]n insured’s underlying first-party action for insurance benefits against the insurer necessarily must be resolved favorably to the insured before the cause of action for bad faith in settlement negotiations can accrue.” Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1991). Without finding an insurer liable under a policy for underinsured motorist benefits, an insured has no bad-faith claim. Id; see also Bottini v. GEICO, 859 F. 3d 987, 993 (11th Cir. 2017). Walker’s bad-faith claim is premature because Geico has not been found liable under its underinsured motorist benefits policy. The proper course is for the Court to dismiss without prejudice the bad-faith claim subject to refiling if Geico is found liable under the underinsured motorist benefits policy. See Romano v. Amer. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. 834 F. 2d 968, 970 (11th Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal of bad-faith claim as premature “without prejudice to refiling of the action if and when appropriate’’). Accordingly, Geico’s motion to dismiss Walker’s bad-faith claim (Count II) is GRANTED. Count II is DISMISSED without prejudice. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 5, 2021.
Sith Famlal [liahle Kathryn Kiccball Mirella United States District Judge