Suzanne Harvey v. Geico General Insurance Company, Respondent. — Polston, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Polston, dissenting, would have concluded that the Florida Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because the Fourth District's decision did not expressly and directly conflict with controlling Florida bad-faith decisions. He reasoned that the insurer fulfilled the identified good-faith obligations and that differing outcomes were attributable to materially different facts. Justice Canady, C.J., dissenting, likewise would have discharged the case, concluding that the majority misread the governing law and improperly reinstated liability against the insurer.