Sienna Grimes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

── Sienna Grimes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 10, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-13745 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13745 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SIENNA GRIMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cv-02542-SDM-LSG ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13745 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13745 Appellant, Sienna Grimes, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellee, State Farm Mutual Au- tomobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), on her bad faith claim, which arose following an automobile accident caused by State Farm’s insured, Larry Stanaland (“Stanaland”). Grimes, along with several other individuals, sustained injuries from the accident, but Grimes, unlike the other individuals, did not enter into a settle- ment agreement with State Farm. Rather, Grimes filed suit in state court against Stanaland and his wife, Mary, who co-owned the ve- hicle with her husband. The jury found in favor of Grimes, award- ing her more than the policy limits of the Stanaland’s policy with State Farm, and Grimes subsequently filed a bad faith claim against State Farm in state court to recover the excess judgment. State Farm removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Having reviewed the record and read the parties’ briefs, we affirm the dis- trict court’s summary judgment order. I. We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment. Martinez v. GEICO Cas. Ins. Co., 152 F. 4th 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2025). We apply the same legal standard used by the dis- trict court, drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and recognizing that summary judgment is ap- propriate only where there are no genuine issues of material fact. Id. USCA11 Case: 25-13745 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 3 of 11 25-13745 Opinion of the Court 3 II. On June 27, 2020, Larry Stanaland, driving a vehicle owned jointly with his wife, Mary, a passenger in the vehicle, ran a red light and struck three other vehicles. One of the vehicles was driven by Grimes and owned by Jordan Legault. At the time of the accident, State Farm insured the Stanalands under a policy that covered bod- ily injury of $25,000 for each person and $50,000 for each accident. State Farm received notice of the accident and assigned the bodily injury claims to a claims specialist. The claims specialist informed Larry Stanaland that he needed to accept liability for the accident and explained excess exposure to him. The claims specialist sent two letters explaining that th