Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Cheriese Johnson began experiencing a range of symptoms, including coughing and pain in her hands and feet, prior to her employment in July 2016 with The William Carter Company. She purchased a long-term disability insurance policy from Reliance Standard that became effective in October 2016. During the three months before her coverage began, Johnson sought medical care for various symptoms and received several diagnoses, but not scleroderma. In early 2017, after her policy was active, she was diagnosed with scleroderma—a rare autoimmune disease—following a lung biopsy. Johnson then filed a claim for long-term disability benefits, which Reliance Standard denied, arguing her disability was caused by a preexisting condition for which she had received treatment during the policy’s lookback period.After her claim was denied and her appeal was unsuccessful, Johnson sued Reliance Standard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). She moved for judgment on the administrative record, while Reliance Standard sought summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Reliance Standard, finding its decision to deny benefits was correct under the terms of the policy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. Applying ERISA’s interpretive framework and reviewing the plan administrator’s decision de novo, the Eleventh Circuit held that Reliance Standard’s interpretation of the policy was both incorrect and unreasonable. The court concluded that Johnson had not received medical treatment “for” scleroderma during the lookback period because neither she nor her doctors suspected or intended to treat that specific condition at that time. The court found that Reliance Standard’s interpretation was arbitrary and capricious, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Johnson v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

An individual incarcerated in a county jail in Alabama died after several months in custody, during which his mother, acting as administrator of his estate, alleges he was denied adequate medical care. The county jail had contracted with a private company, Preemptive Forensic Health Solutions, to provide all inmate medical care, even though the company employed no physicians and was allegedly incompetent. Prior to the decedent's death, multiple inmates had died under this company's care, and concerns about inadequate medical treatment became a significant issue in a local sheriff’s election. Despite these concerns and the new sheriff’s efforts to terminate the contract, the county continued and even renewed the agreement with the company, retaining exclusive control over its continuation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment to the county, holding that Alabama law limited the county's role to funding inmate healthcare, not providing it, and thus precluded liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court determined that only the sheriff was responsible for administering medical care in the jail and that the county had fulfilled its statutory duty by paying for services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed this decision. The appellate court held that, under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York and Ancata v. Prison Health Services, Inc., a county can be liable under § 1983 if it adopts or maintains a policy or custom that results in deliberate indifference to inmates' constitutional rights. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the county’s policy of contracting with an incompetent provider—and preventing the sheriff from changing it—could have caused the decedent’s Eighth Amendment violation. The court ruled that Alabama law does not bar such liability and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Smothers v. Childers" on Justia Law

Jason Starr, following a contentious divorce from his ex-wife Sara Starr, was required to pay substantial monthly support and other financial obligations. Evidence showed Jason was deeply frustrated by these requirements and expressed anger in personal writings. After Sara moved out, she confided to a friend that she feared Jason would kill her. Prior to the murder, Jason suggested to a friend that his brother Darin could “take care of” marital problems for a fee. Darin, living in Texas, purchased a motorcycle with Jason’s financial assistance and received additional payments from Jason through a third party. Cell-site data and witness testimony placed Darin near Sara’s Alabama residence in the days leading up to her murder. Sara was shot and killed outside her home, and surveillance footage showed a motorcycle leaving the scene shortly after. Darin returned to Texas the same day. Later, while in jail for an unrelated offense, Darin made statements implying Jason owed him a significant favor.A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama indicted Jason and Darin Starr for using interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. At trial, the government presented circumstantial evidence linking both brothers to the crime. The jury convicted both Jason and Darin, and the district court imposed mandatory life sentences.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed claims that the district court erred by excluding alternate perpetrator evidence, admitting certain hearsay and investigative testimony, and that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court properly excluded speculative alternate perpetrator evidence, correctly admitted the challenged statements under evidentiary rules, and found the evidence sufficient for conviction. The court affirmed both convictions and sentences. View "USA v. Starr" on Justia Law

A provider of air ambulance services transported a patient insured by a health maintenance organization, but the provider was not part of the insurer’s network. After the transport, the provider and insurer could not agree on the payment amount. The dispute was submitted to the Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process established by the federal No Surprises Act, which requires each party to submit a payment offer and supporting rationale to an arbitrator. The arbitrator, a certified IDR entity, selected the insurer’s lower payment offer. The provider alleged that the insurer had misrepresented its “Qualifying Payment Amount” (QPA) by submitting a lower QPA to the arbitrator than it had previously provided to the provider, and claimed this constituted fraud.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed the provider’s complaint, finding that judicial review of IDR awards is limited to the grounds set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and that the provider’s allegations did not meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud. The court also dismissed the arbitrator from the case with prejudice, holding that the No Surprises Act does not create a cause of action against IDR entities.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that the No Surprises Act incorporates the FAA’s limited grounds for vacating arbitration awards and that the provider failed to adequately plead fraud or undue means under those standards. The court also found that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority and that it was not necessary to name the arbitrator as a defendant to challenge the award. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in full. View "REACH Air Medical Services LLC v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc." on Justia Law

Two inmates at Smith State Prison in Georgia, Miguel Jackson and Kelvin Stevenson, were involved in a prison riot on December 31, 2010, after officers discovered contraband in Jackson’s cell. The officers alleged that Jackson and Stevenson assaulted them, leading to both inmates being handcuffed and escorted away. Jackson and Stevenson claimed that, after being restrained, they were severely beaten by correctional officers. They filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against thirty-nine officers, asserting claims of excessive force and failure to intervene under the Eighth Amendment.Over the course of more than a decade, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed many defendants, and the district court granted partial summary judgment, leaving nine officers as defendants by the time of trial. Just before jury selection, plaintiffs moved to dismiss seven more defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which the district court granted, entering judgment in favor of those defendants and reserving the issue of costs and sanctions. The case proceeded to trial against Officers Catanzariti and Harrison. The jury found for Catanzariti on Jackson’s excessive force claim but found he failed to intervene when other officers used excessive force, awarding Jackson $1.00 in damages. Stevenson’s claims against both officers were rejected.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs challenged the district court’s grant of their Rule 41 motion and several evidentiary rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the partial dismissal and entering judgment for the seven defendants, nor in admitting the challenged evidence. The court affirmed the district court’s final judgments. View "Jackson v. Catanzariti" on Justia Law

Two Saudi Arabian companies, Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company and Al Rushaid Trading Company, specialized in helping foreign manufacturers access the Saudi oil and gas market. Over several decades, they entered into various agreements with Dresser-Rand Group (DRG), including exclusive sales representation and joint venture contracts related to the sale and servicing of DRG products in Saudi Arabia. In 2014, Siemens Energy announced its acquisition of DRG, which was completed in 2015. After the acquisition, Al Rushaid alleged that Siemens excluded them from contracts and joint venture benefits, misused proprietary information, and diverted business opportunities.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida first dismissed Al Rushaid’s original complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading but allowed amendment. Al Rushaid then filed an amended complaint asserting claims for tortious interference, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding that Siemens was not a stranger to the relevant business relationships due to its ownership of DRG, that the unfair competition claim was improperly pleaded and lacked necessary elements, and that the unjust enrichment claim failed to meet pleading standards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. The court held that Siemens, as owner of DRG, was not a stranger to the contracts or business relationships under Florida law, defeating the tortious interference claims. The unfair competition claim was dismissed as a shotgun pleading and for failure to allege required elements. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed for lack of clarity and because express contracts governed the subject matter. The district court’s dismissal of all claims without prejudice was affirmed. View "Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company v. Siemens Energy Incorporated" on Justia Law

A company operating stevedoring services at the Port of Mobile, Alabama, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union representing longshore workers. The agreement included a no-strike provision and outlined procedures for resolving disputes, including arbitration. After an alleged strike by union members, the company filed a lawsuit in state court seeking a temporary restraining order and later damages for breach of the no-strike provision. The state court issued a restraining order, ending the strike within days. The union subsequently removed the case to federal court, where the company amended its complaint to seek damages, asserting that all conditions precedent for judicial action had been met.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the union moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through the arbitration process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the agreement permitted the company to seek monetary damages in court for violations of the no-strike provision. The union then filed an interlocutory appeal of the order denying arbitration, while the underlying damages action remained pending.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the Federal Arbitration Act’s provision for interlocutory appeals does not apply to collective bargaining agreements covering workers engaged in interstate commerce, such as longshoremen. The court also found no basis for jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act or the collateral-order doctrine. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the district court’s order in place and expressing no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. View "APM Terminals Mobile, LLC v. International Longshoremen's Association" on Justia Law

A nonprofit corporation purchased a 192-unit apartment complex from a government agency in 1994 at a significant discount. In exchange, the purchaser agreed by contract to rent all units at below-market rates to low-income families for 40 years and to comply with annual reporting and administrative fee requirements. Around 2016, the purchaser stopped fulfilling these obligations, including the reporting and fee provisions. The government’s successor agency, through its monitoring agent, notified the purchaser of the breach and initiated legal action seeking remedies under the contract.The purchaser counterclaimed in state court, seeking a declaration that the agreement was no longer enforceable and an injunction against further enforcement. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as successor to the original government agency, intervened, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The purchaser argued that the contract’s obligations ended when Congress repealed the statute that created the original agency and authorized such agreements. The district court rejected this argument, holding that the contract remained enforceable, dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the contract’s plain language required the purchaser to comply with its obligations for the full 40-year term, regardless of the repeal of the underlying statute. The court found that the FDIC, as successor, retained both contractual and statutory authority to enforce the agreement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the counterclaim, concluding that the agreement remains enforceable and the purchaser is still bound by its terms. View "Affordable Housing Group, Inc. v. Florida Housing Affordability, Inc." on Justia Law

Lauren Woods was injured in a car accident involving an underinsured motorist and sought benefits from her insurer, Progressive American Insurance Company, under her policy’s underinsured motorist provision. Progressive declined to pay the full policy limit. Woods then sued Progressive for breach of contract and statutory bad faith under Florida law, alleging that Progressive failed to settle her claim in good faith. After serving civil remedy notices, Woods’s case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida first held a jury trial on Woods’s underinsured motorist claim, resulting in a verdict and final judgment in her favor that exceeded the policy limit. Woods then proceeded with her statutory bad faith claim before the same court. Prior to the bad faith trial, the parties stipulated to certain facts, including the existence and amount of the prior verdict and judgment. They also agreed that the magistrate judge would determine damages, and the jury would decide only liability. At the start of the bad faith trial, Woods limited her theory to Progressive’s conduct before the underinsured motorist trial, and the court excluded evidence and instructions regarding the prior verdict and excess judgment. The jury found for Progressive on the bad faith claim, and the court denied Woods’s motion for a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the prior verdict and excess judgment from the bad faith trial. The court found that, given Woods’s stipulation limiting the scope of her claim and the parties’ agreement that damages would be determined by the judge, the excluded evidence was irrelevant to the jury’s determination of liability. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Progressive. View "Woods v. Progressive American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Several landowners in Walton County, Florida, owned beachfront properties that were affected by a county ordinance enacted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March and April 2020, the county first closed public beaches, then issued a new ordinance that closed all beaches—public and private—making it a criminal offense for anyone, including private owners, to access or use their own beachfront property. The ordinance was enforced by law enforcement officers who entered private property, excluded owners, and threatened arrest for violations. The ordinance remained in effect for about a month, after which it expired and was not renewed.The landowners filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, raising several claims, including a Takings Clause claim under the Fifth Amendment, and seeking both damages and prospective relief. The district court dismissed the claims for prospective relief as moot, finding the ordinance had expired and was unlikely to recur. On the merits, the district court granted summary judgment to the county on all damages claims, holding that the ordinance was not a per se physical taking but rather a use restriction, and that the government’s actions during a public health emergency were entitled to deference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims for prospective relief, agreeing that the ordinance’s expiration rendered those claims moot. However, the court reversed the district court’s judgment on the Takings Clause claim, holding that the ordinance constituted a per se physical taking because it barred owners from their property and allowed government officials to physically occupy and control access. The court remanded for a determination of just compensation, holding that no public emergency, including COVID-19, creates an exception to the Takings Clause. View "Alford v. Walton County" on Justia Law