Lawyers for Geico argued at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday that the insurer should not be on the hook for the lion’s share of a more than $2.9 million default judgment against a driver who hit a bicyclist—a judgment later affirmed against the carrier by a federal jury. 

Arguing for the insurer, Smith Gambrell & Russell partner Edward Wasmuth Jr. told the appellate panel that it is “fundamentally unfair” to hold Geico responsible for a massive default judgment handed down in a case it didn’t even know about, which was then allowed to be the damages benchmark for a subsequent trial finding it acted in bad faith.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]