[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12675 ____________________

KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Appellee, versus PRIDE OF ST. LUCIE LODGE 1189, INC., TEAIRA NICOLE REED,

Defendants-Counter Claimants Appellants. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-14053-KMM USCA11 Case: 22-12675 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2025 Page: 2 of 52

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12675

____________________

Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. MARCUS, Circuit Judge: On Sunday, March 1, 2015, the Pride of St. Lucie Lodge 1189, Inc. (the “Lodge”) was operating as a club and bar while hosting a weekend social event. Around 1:00 a.m. on March 2, two groups of female patrons at the Lodge became involved in a fight on the dance floor and were removed from the Lodge out separate exits. The groups nevertheless found each other in the Lodge’s back park- ing lot and the fight continued, culminating in Tanya Oliver being shot in the forehead, all within ten to fifteen minutes after being turned out of the Lodge. She would die from her injuries the fol- lowing year. Kinsale Insurance Company (“Kinsale”) insured the Lodge. Teaira Reed as representative of the Estate of Tanya Oliver (the “Estate”) eventually sued the Lodge on a theory of negligent secu- rity. At trial, a jury found the Lodge liable for Oliver’s injuries and awarded damages exceeding $3.348 million, an amount far in ex- cess of Kinsale’s $50,000 applicable policy sublimit. The Lodge and the Estate then sued Kinsale for common law bad faith under Florida law. The Lodge and the Estate claim that Kinsale breached its duty of good faith by failing to make a settlement offer within the policy limits before the Estate’s claim was filed. The district court granted summary judgment to Kinsale on the ground that Kinsale had no duty to initiate settlement USCA11 Case: 22-12675 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2025 Page: 3 of 52

22-12675 Opinion of the Court 3

negotiations because, viewed in the light most favorable to the non- moving parties, no reasonable jury could find that this was a case of “clear liability.” As we see it, however, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Lodge and the Estate, a jury could reasonably find Kinsale knew or should have known liability was clear. Two feud- ing groups had a physical fight on the Lodge’s premises, the Lodge’s security simultaneously turned both groups outside into a dark and unmonitored parking lot owned by the Lodge where, al- most immediately thereafter, a second, more serious fight erupted, ultimately leading to Oliver being shot. The Lodge’s security did nothing to prevent the second fight from occurring or from esca- lating into a fatal shooting, all within a very short period of time. Moreover, a jury could reasonably find that Kinsale well k