BlogLine

Causation is disputed – that’s why Florida’s Second DCA is keeping the (bad) faith instruction

11/11/25

By: Jessica Cauley

On September 19, 2025, Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals affirmed a final judgment in favor of Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (“FFB”) in an extra-contractual action. The case arose out of a fatal accident on May 28, 2016, where FFB insured the driver who, unfortunately, hit and killed a bicyclist, Mr. Hancock. Within days, FFB contacted Mrs. Hancock as the widow and later, personal representative of Mr. Hancock’s estate to tender the available $50,000 in bodily injury liability coverage. Mrs. Hancock did not accept multiple undisputed overtures.

Following a wrongful death suit against the insured driver, the estate was awarded $13,550,592 in damages. Thereafter, the insured driver assigned her rights to any extra-contractual claim against FBB for the claim handling to the estate. In the subsequent action, the estate alleged that FBB breached its duty to act in good faith in handling the claim, resulting in the excess judgment against its insured.

In the action, the estate alleged FBB used improper and harassing tactics to pressure Mrs. Hancock to settle on behalf of the estate, dissuading Mrs. Hancock from accepting the BI liability limit. FBB argued it did not cause the excess judgment where the estate never intended to settle the claim, despite FBB’s efforts.

When the jury determined that FBB acted in bad faith in handling the wrongful death claim but that bad faith was not the legal cause of the excess judgment against its insured, this appeal followed. On appeal, the estate argued that (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury that FBB’s bad faith had to be the cause of the excess judgment; and (2) the verdict form improperly required the jury to determine a causal connection between FBB’s bad faith and the excess judgment.

The instruction was consistent with the standard instruction 404.6(a) on legal cause with the exception of an instructing sentence that FBB’s bad faith actions “must be the cause of the excess judgment” against its insured. The verdict form similarly featured two questions regarding whether FBB’s conduct was in bad faith and whether there was a causal connection between the bad faith and the excess judgment.

The court rejected the estate’s argument that the instruction and verdict form were unnecessarily confusing on the cause of the excess judgment (the severity of the accident) versus the failure to settle (FBB’s claim handling). The appellate court discussed a trial court’s broad discretion to formulate appropriate jury instructions, which should not be reversed absent a miscarriage of justice or requisite jury confusion. The court properly found no such grounds for reversal, particularly where at trial the parties espoused the above two theories on causation and the estate conceded that causation was at issue in the jury’s determination.

This case affirms the importance of carefully drafting jury instructions that accurately reflect the issues for the jury’s determination after the close of evidence at trial, as well as conformity with the law.

Please contact Jessica Cauley at jessica.cauley@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney for more information. 

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.