WHITESIDE v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY

Filing 91

ORDER denying 89 Motion to Bifurcate Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 05/25/2018 (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
FIFE M. WHITESIDE, Trustee in
Bankruptcy,

*
*

Plaintiff,
*
vs.

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-313 (CDL)
*

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,
*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
The trial of this action is scheduled to begin on June 18,
2018.

Defendant GEICO Indemnity Company moved to bifurcate the

trial so that the issue of liability is tried separately from
the

issues

of

causation

and

damages.

As

discussed

below,

GEICO’s present motion to bifurcate (ECF No. 89) is denied.
Court

still

plans

to

bifurcate

the

issue

of

the

amount

The
of

punitive damages.
I.

Background
As the Court previously recounted, GEICO rejected a time-

limited offer to settle a liability claim within its insured’s
policy limits.
policy.

At that time, coverage existed under the GEICO

After

the

acceptance,

the

injured

person

driver

the

vehicle,

who

of

time-limited

demand

filed
for

an

expired

action

purposes

of

without

against
the

the

present

discussion would have been a covered insured under the GEICO

policy when the lawsuit was filed.

The defendant in that action

allowed the case to go into default, and a default judgment was
entered

against

her

in

the

amount

of

$2,916,204.00.

GEICO

unsuccessfully sought to have that judgment set aside both by
the trial court and the Georgia Court of Appeals.
The

injured

plaintiff

subsequently

filed

an

involuntary

bankruptcy petition against the defendant, and the bankruptcy
trustee filed this action against GEICO to recover for bad faith
or negligent failure to settle the underlying personal injury
claim.

GEICO claims that it has no liability for such a claim

because it had no opportunity to defend the underlying action
before

it

went

into

default

and

because

the

actions

of

its

insured (the defendant in the underlying action) in allowing the
matter to go into default were the sole proximate cause of any
damages

she

suffered.

The

Court

previously

denied

summary

judgment on these issues, and the case is scheduled for a jury
trial.

See generally Whiteside v. GEICO Indem. Co., No. 4:16-

CV-313 (CDL), 2017 WL 6347174, at *7 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 12, 2017).
The

Court

also

previously

concluded

that

the

amount

of

the

default judgment is relevant to the issue of damages and denied
GEICO’s motion to exclude it.

Whiteside v. GEICO Indem. Co.,

No. 4:16-CV-313 (CDL), 2018 WL 1535484, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 29,
2018).

Now, GEICO asks the Court to exclude the amount of the

default

judgment

until

after

the

2

jury

decides

the

issue

of

liability—whether

GEICO

acted

unreasonably

in

rejecting

the

policy limits settlement demand.
II.

Discussion
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), the Court “may

order

a

separate

trial

of

one

or

more

separate

issues

[or]

claims” “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite
and economize.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Here, GEICO argues that

the amount of the default judgment is unduly prejudicial because
it may distract the jury from GEICO’s liability arguments; that
the issues of liability and damages are completely separate and
distinct; and that separating these issues will promote judicial
economy

because

the

jury

will

“complicated” issue of liability.

be

able

to

focus

on

The Court disagrees.

the

First,

the issue of liability is not unreasonably complicated as GEICO
argues.
instructed

Second,
jury

the
will

Court
be

is
able

convinced
to

that

decide

a

properly

whether

GEICO

unreasonably failed to accept the settlement offer without being
distracted by the amount of the default judgment.

Therefore,

bifurcation is not necessary to avoid prejudice.

Third, the

issues are not completely separate because a number of facts
related to GEICO’s handling of the injured party’s claim are
relevant both to the issue of liability and to the issue of
whether and to what extent GEICO’s actions caused damages to the
insured.

If the Court ordered bifurcation of these issues, it

3

could result in a repetitive retrial of the same issues.

For

these reasons, the Court finds that separation of the liability
and damages issues in this case is not warranted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, GEICO’s present motion to
bifurcate (ECF No. 89) is denied.
decision

to

bifurcate

the

The Court reaffirms its prior

issue

of

the

amount

of

punitive

damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of May, 2018.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4