1.0 How A $50,000 Policy Dispute Became A $267,608 Excess Judgment Insurance Claim
A
car accident in Florida turned into a seven-figure legal saga because an
insurance company would not put its full policy limits on the table when it had
the chance.
In
November 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury's finding
that Progressive Select Insurance Company acted in bad faith when it handled a
claim against its own policyholders — and that decision left Progressive on the
hook for a $267,608 excess judgment insurance claim that started as a simple
$50,000 policy limit dispute.
If
you've ever wondered why an insurer would risk owing hundreds of thousands more
than a policy is worth just to avoid paying the full limits, this case lays it
out step by step.
Here's
what happened, why the court ruled the way it did, and what accident victims
and policyholders can take from it.
2.0 Table Of Contents
- 1.0 How A $50,000 Policy Dispute Became A $267,608 Excess Judgment Insurance Claim
- 2.0 Table Of Contents
- 3.0 What Happened When Progressive Refused To Settle A $50,000 Claim
- 4.0 Why Progressive Didn't Pay the Policy Limits Up Front
- 5.00 How A $50,000 Policy Turned Into A $267,608 Excess Judgment
- 6.00 What Is An Excess Judgment In An Insurance Bad Faith Claim?
- 7.00 How Florida's Bad Faith Law Works — And Why The Court Sided With The Woods
- 8.00 What This Case Means If Your Insurer Is Slow To Settle
- 9.0 Editorial Disclaimer
- 10.00 Frequently Asked Questions
2.10 Case Timeline At A Glance
| Stage | What Happened | Result | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Accident (October 2015) | Kaylee Wood's car collides with Robert Buckner's SUV; Kaylee receives a traffic citation, and the Woods report the crash to Progressive the same day. | Buckner files a claim against the Woods' bodily injury liability policy. | $50,000 policy limit. |
| First Policy-Limits Demand (November 2016) | Buckner's attorney demands the full policy limits, supported by medical records documenting his injuries. | Progressive offers only a fraction of the demand after mediation fails, and negotiations reach an impasse. | $5,432 counteroffer. |
| Second Policy-Limits Demand (June 2018) | A second demand for the full policy limits is submitted with a June 29, 2018 deadline. | Buckner undergoes cervical fusion surgery in September 2018 due to his neck injuries while the demand remains unresolved. | $50,000 demanded. |
| Late Tender (October 2018) | Progressive finally tenders the full policy limits. | Buckner's attorney rejects the late offer. | $50,000 tendered. |
| Jury Verdict (February 2019) | The underlying injury case against the Woods goes to trial. | A jury awards Buckner damages against the Woods, far exceeding the policy limit. | $267,608.50 verdict. |
| Bad Faith Lawsuit (March 2021) | The Woods file a bad faith lawsuit against Progressive, alleging the insurer failed to protect them from the excess judgment. | Case proceeds through the courts. | Excess judgment at issue. |
| Appeal (11th Cir., November 2025) | Progressive appeals the bad faith verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. | Affirmed against Progressive. | Judgment stands. |
3.0 What Happened When Progressive Refused To Settle A $50,000 Claim
In
October 2015, Kaylee Wood's car collided with an SUV driven by Robert Buckner.
Police cited Kaylee for the accident. At first, neither driver reported
injuries. That changed when Buckner later said the crash had left him with neck
and cervical spine injuries.
Kaylee
and her father, Bryan Wood, were insured under a Progressive policy with
$50,000 in bodily injury liability coverage. Buckner filed a personal injury
claim against that policy the same day the Woods reported the crash. His
attorney soon sent Progressive a letter laying out the claim.
A
Progressive claims examiner reviewed the accident and the available coverage,
then determined Kaylee was at fault.
The
examiner already had a salvage report on Buckner's vehicle, photos of the
damage, and information about a prior accident Buckner had been in — but
Progressive still asked Messer's office for more details about the extent of
Buckner's injuries.
This
initial review is typical of how a car accident adjuster works early in a
claim: assessing fault, gathering evidence, and deciding how much exposure the
policy actually carries before the case moves any further.
By
November 2016, Messer presented Progressive with a demand for the full $50,000
policy limits, backed by medical records.
Those
records showed Buckner had early degenerative changes with herniated discs at
C4-5 and C5-6, and that a doctor considered him a candidate for cervical disc
surgery.
Buckner
was trying to avoid surgery at that point and had about $2,715 in out-of-pocket
medical costs. The demand asked Progressive to question whether those costs
even related to the accident.
4.0 Why Progressive Didn't Pay The Policy Limits Up Front
Buckner
filed a lawsuit against the Woods after the demand went unanswered at the
policy limits. Progressive assigned new claims examiners and a law firm to
defend the Woods.
One
examiner spoke with Messer, who explained that Buckner's doctor had recommended
surgery and that Buckner was entitled to the full limits on that basis.
Handoffs
like this aren't unusual once a case moves toward litigation — a car insurance
adjuster or auto insurance adjuster assigned at the start of a claim is often
replaced by a different auto insurance claims adjuster once a lawsuit is filed,
which can create gaps in how consistently a file gets evaluated over time.
4.10 The First Offer Fell Far Short
With
no additional medical documentation in hand, Progressive offered to settle for
$5,432 — a small fraction of the $50,000 available. A mediation session
followed, and it fell apart. During mediation, the Woods learned Buckner would
accept the full $50,000 policy limits to resolve the case. Progressive still
refused to tender the limits, and the mediation reached an impasse.
4.20 The Medical Evidence Progressive Had Access To
Once
Progressive heard Buckner might need surgery, a claims examiner arranged an independent medical exam with a Progressive-approved physician, Dr. Michael
Zeide, to evaluate whether the proposed surgery was reasonable and necessary.
After
that exam, a different adjuster tried to reopen negotiations. That adjuster
noted Buckner was moving toward surgery but found nothing in the medical
records that changed Progressive's evaluation of the claim — and never extended
another offer.
That
kind of turnover is common industry-wide: a vehicle insurance adjuster or
automotive insurance adjuster may inherit a file mid-claim without the full
context the original car insurance claims adjuster had already built up.
In
June 2018, Messer sent a second demand for the policy limits, with a deadline
of June 29, 2018. This demand didn't include new medical documentation, and
Buckner's total out-of-pocket costs were still under $2,802. He wasn't
scheduled for surgery at that point, and he later testified that he wasn't
willing to settle at the policy limits by the time that deadline passed.
5.00 How A $50,000 Policy Turned Into A $267,608 Excess Judgment
Buckner
had cervical fusion surgery in September 2018. His attorney told Progressive
about the surgery a month later. Only then did Progressive try to resolve the
claim by tendering a check for the full $50,000 policy limits. By that point,
Messer rejected the check outright, saying he would only negotiate for amounts
above the policy limits.
5.10 The Underlying Jury Verdict
The
case went to trial in February 2019. A jury sided with Buckner and awarded him
$267,608.50 in damages against the Woods — more than five times the $50,000
available under the policy. That gap between what the policy covered and what
the jury awarded is what created the excess judgment insurance claim at the
center of everything that followed.
5.20 The Woods Sue Progressive For Bad Faith
In
March 2021, the Woods filed a third-party common law bad faith claim against
Progressive over how it had handled Buckner's claim.
A
jury agreed with the Woods, finding Progressive acted in bad faith. Progressive
asked the trial court to overturn the verdict through a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or alternatively for a new trial based on a
jury selection dispute.
The
trial court denied both requests, and Progressive appealed to the Eleventh
Circuit, where the full docket in Woodv. Progressive Select, No. 24-13479
traces the case through to the court’s January 2026 denial of rehearing en
banc.
6.00 What Is An Excess Judgment In An Insurance Bad Faith Claim?
An
excess judgment happens when a court awards damages that go beyond what an
insurance policy covers. If your liability policy has a $50,000 limit and a
jury awards $267,608 against you, the $217,608 above your coverage is the
excess — and you're personally on the hook for it unless you can hold the
insurer accountable.
| Figure | Amount |
|---|---|
| Policy Limit (Bodily Injury Liability) | $50,000 |
| Progressive's First Settlement Offer | $5,432 |
| Buckner's Out-of-Pocket Costs at Second Demand | $2,801.50 |
| Jury Verdict Against the Woods | $267,608.50 |
| Amount Exceeding the Policy Limit ("Excess") | $217,608.50 |
That's
where third-party bad faith law comes in. When an insurer had a real chance to
settle within the policy limits and didn't take it, and that failure exposed
the policyholder to a judgment beyond those limits, the insurer can end up
owing the entire judgment — not just the original policy amount.
Florida
courts have applied this rule for decades, tracing back to Boston Old Colony Insurance Co. v. Gutierrez, a 1980 Florida Supreme Court decision that still shapes how these duties are defined today.
This
is also why the size of the gap matters so much in these cases. A $50,000
policy that produces a $60,000 judgment is a very different story than one that
produces a judgment more than five times the limit.
Attorneys
who handle these cases point out that Florida requires an actual excess
judgment — not just a settlement everyone agreed to — before a court even has
jurisdiction to hear a bad faith claim.
7.00 How Florida's Bad Faith Law Works — And Why The Court Sided With The Woods
Florida
recognizes bad faith claims under both a specific statute with a 60-day curewindow and long-standing common law. For third-party claims like this one —
where the injured person isn't the policyholder but is suing someone the
policyholder's insurer covers — the common law standard controls.
For
first-party claims brought under the statute rather than common law, Florida
requires the policyholder to file a Civil Remedy Notice with the Department of
Financial Services at least 60 days before suing, including the specific violation the notice must identify — a step that did not apply to the Woods'
third-party common law claim.
7.10 The Two Things A Plaintiff Has To Prove
Under
Eleventh Circuit precedent, a policyholder bringing a bad faith claim has to
show two things: bad faith conduct by the insurer, and that the conduct caused
an excess judgment against the insured.
Florida
courts have also said that bad faith can be inferred from a settlement delay
that's willful and lacks a reasonable basis, and that any doubt about how a
settlement effort might have turned out should be resolved in favor of the
policyholder, not the insurer.
Florida
law doesn't treat an insurer's obligations as a simple checklist. Instead,
courts look at the totality of the circumstances and ask whether the insurer
worked on the policyholder's behalf with the same urgency it would have used if
it were the one facing the judgment — the same common-law duty rooted in Boston
Old Colony discussed above.
That
duty is reinforced by a separate statute, Florida's Unfair Insurance Trade
Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §626.9541, which defines the specific unfair claim
settlement practices insurers are prohibited from engaging in.
7.20 What The Eleventh Circuit Pointed To
The appellate court found several things in the record that supported the jury's bad faith finding.
A
Progressive adjuster testified that she never consulted the American Medical
Association's permanency guidelines because Buckner hadn't missed work.
The
jury also heard about the timing of Buckner's medical records — when
Progressive received them and how it responded — and evidence that Progressive
withdrew its own medical expert after he concluded the accident had at least
aggravated Buckner's existing spinal condition.
Taken
together, the court found this was enough for a jury to conclude Progressive
ignored medical information it had access to, failed to reassess the Woods'
exposure as that information came in, and that this failure contributed to the
excess judgment.
The
court also pointed to evidence that Progressive didn't disclose settlement
overtures to the Woods during the underlying lawsuit — a separate basis for a
bad faith finding under Florida case law, since policyholders who rely on their
insurer to handle negotiations are entitled to know what's happening in those
talks.
Progressive
tried to lean on a different case, Deary v. Progressive American Insurance Co.,
where a federal court had found that a mere disagreement over a claim's value
doesn't automatically amount to bad faith.
The
Eleventh Circuit distinguished that case here, noting the Woods had shown bad
faith conduct that went beyond an ordinary valuation dispute — namely, the
undisclosed settlement talks and the disregarded medical evidence.
Worth
noting: the Eleventh Circuit issued this ruling as an unpublished, per curiam decision — meaning it does not carry the binding, precedential weight of a
published opinion and applies most directly to the facts of this specific case,
even though it offers a useful window into how courts evaluate bad faith
conduct.
7.30 The Jury Selection Argument That Didn't Work
Progressive
separately argued it deserved a new trial because the district court refused to
remove a prospective juror — a plaintiff's attorney whose firm handled bad
faith cases against insurers — for cause.
Progressive
had to use one of its peremptory strikes on that juror instead, which it argued
weakened its position during jury selection.
The
Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument too. Courts evaluating juror
impartiality look at whether the juror might be influenced by matters outside
the evidence and whether they'd presume liability rather than approach the case
neutrally.
The
court found Progressive offered only speculation, not evidence, that the jurors
who actually sat on the case were biased — and under Supreme Court precedent,
that's what matters, not which jurors were struck along the way.
8.00 What This Case Means If Your Insurer Is Slow To Settle
Every
bad faith case turns on its own facts — as a $20,000 policy that produced a $2million judgment shows in a separate Florida case — and this ruling doesn't
guarantee any particular outcome for a different claim.
A few things accident victims and
policyholders can do to protect a claim:
- Keep A Written Record Of Every Settlement Demand And Deadline. The Woods' case turned partly on the timeline — when Progressive received medical records, when demands were made, and how long Progressive waited before responding.
- Ask Your Insurer Directly Whether Settlement Talks Are Happening. Florida law expects insurers to disclose settlement overtures to their policyholders, not just to the other side's attorney.
- Request Updates On Medical Evidence Review. If new records or opinions come in, ask how the claim's evaluation has changed.
- Note When Demands Expire. A rejected policy-limits demand doesn't disappear — it can become central evidence in a later bad faith case if a judgment does exceed the policy.
- Talk To A Licensed Attorney If A Case Is Heading To Trial With Policy Limits Still Unresolved. An attorney can evaluate whether a policy-limits demand should be sent and how it should be documented.
- Know Who's Handling The File, And Whether That's Changed. Whether you're dealing with a Progressive insurance claims adjuster or another company's Progressive insurance adjuster, staying in contact helps you track how a case is progressing — and it's worth asking whether a third party adjuster has been assigned to evaluate a claim brought against your own policy, since that's a different role than the adjuster who handles your own first-party coverage.
None
of this guarantees a specific result, and outcomes depend heavily on the facts
of each case and the law of the state involved. But documentation is consistently
what separates a strong bad faith claim from a weak one.
9.0 Editorial Disclaimer
This
report is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not
legal, financial, insurance, or tax advice.
The
Eleventh Circuit's November 2025 opinion discussed in this article was issued
as an unpublished, non-precedential decision and does not establish binding law
for future cases.
Insurance laws, policy terms, and claim outcomes vary based on individual circumstances and jurisdiction. Readers should review their own insurance policies and consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their situation.
10.00 Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why Did Progressive Refuse To Settle Within The $50,000 Policy Limit?
Progressive's claims examiners determined that the medical documentation they had didn't support paying the full policy limits at the time, and they made a low initial offer of $5,432 instead of the requested $50,000. The jury later found that this evaluation ignored medical evidence Progressive had access to.
2. Can I Sue My Insurance Company For Bad Faith?
In Florida, a policyholder can bring a third-party bad faith claim against an insurer if the insurer had a chance to settle a claim within policy limits, failed to do so in good faith, and that failure led to an excess judgment. Whether a specific case qualifies depends on the facts and should be evaluated by a licensed attorney; the state’s Civil Remedy Notice FAQs explain the statutory pre-suit process
3. What Happens If The Insurance Company Rejects A Policy-Limits Settlement Demand?
If the case goes to trial and the resulting judgment is higher than the policy limits, the policyholder can be personally liable for the difference. That gap — the excess judgment — is often the basis for a later bad faith claim against the insurer.
4. How Is An Excess Judgment Insurance Claim Different From A Regular Insurance Dispute?
A standard dispute is usually about how much a policy owes. An excess judgment claim goes further: it argues the insurer's failure to settle within the policy's own limits is what caused a court judgment to exceed those limits in the first place, potentially making the insurer liable for the entire excess amount.
5. Does Losing A Peremptory Jury Strike Entitle A Party To A New Trial?
Not on its own. Courts focus on whether the jurors who actually sat on the case were impartial, not on which prospective jurors were removed through peremptory strikes during selection. Progressive's loss of a peremptory strike didn't establish that the seated jury was biased.
Post a Comment