Kingsley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

153 F. App'x 555
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedSeptember 29, 2005
Docket05-12170; D.C. Docket 03-00923-CV-WSD-1
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 153 F. App'x 555 (Kingsley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kingsley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 153 F. App'x 555 (11th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Susan Kingsley (“Kingsley”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) and denying her motion for partial summary judgment as inappropriate. 1

*556 Kingsley filed the instant suit seeking damages for State Farm’s alleged tortious refusal to settle Kingsley’s claim against Donna Beam, State Farm’s insured, after a car accident in which Kingsley’s husband was fatally injured. In granting summary judgment in State Farm’s favor on Kingsley’s claim, the district court concluded that State Farm: (1) did not know, nor should it reasonably have known, that settlement within the Policy limits was possible; and (2) did not fail to take sufficient steps to obtain a settlement within a reasonable time.

Upon a de novo review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we agree with the district court that there is no reasonable basis to conclude that State Farm tortiously refused to settle Kingsley’s claim against its insured. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in State Farm’s favor and denying Kingsley’s motion for partial summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Kingsley devotes a substantial portion of her brief to an argument concerning the district court’s April 14, 2003 order disallowing her Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. However, be *556 cause Kingsley did not cite this order in her Notice of Appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of this issue. Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); see also Whetstone Candy Co. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 351 F.3d 1067, 1079-80 (11th Cir.2003). In fact, at no point prior to filing her initial brief did Kingsley challenge this order of the district court by way of a motion for reconsideration, a motion to dismiss the complaint, or by seeking interlocutory review of the order. Instead, Kingsley filed an answer to State Farm's counterclaim, participated in discovery, and ultimately filed an unsuccessful motion for partial summaty judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Camacho v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
287 F.R.D. 688 (N.D. Georgia, 2012)
Jurinko v. Medical Protective Co.
305 F. App'x 13 (Third Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 F. App'x 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingsley-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-ca11-2005.