Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-12143 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ TORRY HULL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-04929-SCJ ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 26-12143 After Torry Hull’s home sustained water damage, he sub- mitted a claim to his insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of Indi- ana. Dissatisfied with Safeco’s payment, he obtained and submit- ted his own estimate. But Safeco rejected Hull’s demand for addi- tional payment. Hull then sued Safeco, alleging claims for breach of contract and bad faith. The district court granted Safeco’s mo- tion for summary judgment on both claims. After careful review, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Hull returned home from a two-week trip to a condenser- line leak in his attic. He submitted a claim to his home insurer, Safeco. His insurance policy covered “accidental direct physical loss to” his home. Safeco’s adjuster inspected the home and deter- mined the leak caused $17,187.02 in damages. After applying de- ductions, Safeco paid out $13,843.95. Hull disagreed. He believed the payment didn’t cover all necessary repairs, so he sought his own estimate from Leading Public Adjuster, Inc. That estimate far exceeded Safeco’s calcula- tion—assessing the repair’s replacement-cost value at $112,401.23 and the actual-cost value at $104,167.45. With this new estimate in hand, Hull demanded $112,401.23. If Safeco didn’t settle the dis- pute, the demand made clear, litigation would follow. Safeco stuck with its original payment. USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 3 of 9 26-12143 Opinion of the Court 3 PROCEDURAL HISTORY As promised, Hull sued Safeco for breach of contract and bad faith. First, he claimed Safeco breached its policy by not fully covering the leak’s damage. Second, he alleged that Safeco acted in bad faith when it refused his demand for additional payment. After discovery, Safeco moved for summary judgment on all claims. It contended that Hull couldn’t point to any admissible ev- idence that the claimed additional loss was caused by the leak and therefore covered by the policy. Hull had only his own testimony to support the covered-loss calculation, but that wasn’t enough be- cause Hull conceded that he was unqualified to give an opinion that the covered leak caused the additional loss. As Hull couldn’t establish a failure to pay a covered loss, Safeco concluded, both his breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims necessarily failed. Hull responded. He argued that a genuine dispute existed because he produced an estimate that detailed a scope and cost of repairs “far exceeding” the amount Safeco provided. And for the first time he disclosed an expert, Carlos Martorell, who would tes- tify about that estimate. Martorell was a public adjuster who helped prepare the estimate. Because Safeco already knew about the estimate and communicated with Martorell’s employer, Hull argued, his failure to disclose Martorell was harmless. Regardless, Hull continued, his own testimony could prove additional covered loss. Moving to the bad-faith claim, he argued that Safeco rejected his demand without showing a legitimate factual or legal basis for the denial. USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 4 of 9 4 Opinion of the Court 26-12143 In reply, Safeco urged the district court not to consider the newly disclosed expert because Hull failed to explain the late dis- closure. It also argued Hull conceded that he was unqualified to speak to the additional loss. Addressing the bad-faith claim, it maintained the claim failed with the breach claim and Hull offered only conclusory evidence of bad faith. The district court granted Safeco’s motion and entered judg- ment for Safeco on both counts. The district court first excluded Martorell’s affidavit. In doing so, the district court concluded that Hull’s failure to disclose Martorell as an expert was neither substan- tially justified nor harmless. The district court then turned to the breach-of-contract claim and concluded that Hull failed to present evidence linking the additional repairs to the leak. It first examined the estimate, finding it insufficient because it “fail[ed] to demonstrate that the specific repairs for which [Hull] s[ought] additional payment were caused by the [leak] or [were] otherwise covered under the [p]olicy.” That was due to the estimate’s lack of “causation analysis, methodology, or other basis from which a jury could determine covered dam- ages.” The court then looked to Hull’s testimony, finding it insuf- ficient because Hull lacked personal knowledge of the “causation, scope, or the necessity of the claimed repairs.” Finally, the district court addressed the bad-faith claim. It explained that the claim failed because Safeco had a reasonable ba- sis to refuse payment—it relied on its own adjuster who personally inspected the residence. USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 5 of 9 26-12143 Opinion of the Court 5 Hull appeals the summary judgment for Safeco. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s imposi- tion of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Cedant v. United States, 75 F.4th 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2023). We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment for the defendant. Akridge v. Alfa Ins. Cos., 93 F.4th 1181, 1191 (11th Cir. 2024). DISCUSSION Hull challenges the summary judgment for Safeco on two grounds. First, Hull argues that the district court wrongly excluded Martorell’s affidavit. Second, he contends that, even without the affidavit, a genuine dispute of material fact precluded summary judgment on his breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims. We ad- dress each in turn. The Exclusion of Martorell’s Affidavit A party must generally disclose an expert witness during dis- covery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A). When a party fails to do so, the court may prohibit that party from relying on the undisclosed expert in any motion or at trial. Id. R. 37(c)(1). But that sanction doesn’t apply when the failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless. Id. Indeed, “Rule 37 sanctions are intended to prevent unfair prejudice to the litigants and to insure the integrity of the discovery process.” Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). In considering whether a district court USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 6 of 9 6 Opinion of the Court 26-12143 abused its discretion in imposing rule 37(c)(1) sanctions, we con- sider: (1) the importance of the testimony; (2) the explanation for failing to disclose; and (3) the prejudice to the opposing party. Romero v. Drummond Co., 552 F.3d 1303, 1321 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, only the first factor, the affidavit’s importance, weighs in Hull’s favor. Without evidence of unpaid covered loss, he could not meet his summary-judgment burden. The second factor, the explanation for failing to disclose, weighs heavily in Safeco’s favor. Hull doesn’t explain what caused the failure. He says only that the failure resulted from a “clerical placement error.” In other words, Hull didn’t ensure over the course of the litigation that he followed his discovery obligations. That oversight is his to bear. Cf. Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1265–66 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming exclusion of expert where pro- ponent provided no explanation for the untimely identification of the expert). The third factor, the prejudice to the opposing party, also heavily weighs in Safeco’s favor. The prejudice was severe. Be- cause Hull didn’t disclose the affidavit until after discovery was closed, he “robbed [Safeco] of” the chance to depose Martorell. See Baxter v. Roberts, 54 F.4th 1241, 1255 (11th Cir. 2022); see also N.D. Ga. Loc. R. 26.2(C) (mandating that any party who intends to use expert testimony must “designate the expert sufficiently early in the discovery period to permit the opposing party the opportunity to depose the expert”). USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 7 of 9 26-12143 Opinion of the Court 7 Hull responds that Safeco suffered no prejudice because it already had the estimate and it was in touch with Martorell’s em- ployer. He also says there was no prejudice because Safeco de- posed Hull about the estimate and it is “the information, not a par- ticular witness’s live testimony,” that is relevant. We disagree. Safeco didn’t need to seek out and depose an undisclosed witness just in case Hull ended up relying on that witness at summary judg- ment. And Hull’s deposition shed no light on Martorell’s testi- mony. Unlike Martorell, Hull couldn’t speak to the methodology and reasonableness of the second estimate. Weighed together, we find no abuse of discretion in the dis- trict court’s exclusion of Martorell’s affidavit. Summary Judgment for Safeco Even without Martorell’s affidavit, Hull challenges the dis- trict court’s summary judgment for Safeco on his breach-of-con- tract and bad-faith claims. He argues that there was still a genuine dispute of fact about whether the additional repairs stemmed from the leak. Specifically, Hull cites the estimate and his deposition tes- timony. But the estimate did not create a genuine dispute of fact. As the district court explained, the estimate “provided no causation analysis, methodology, or other basis from which a jury could de- termine” that the additional repairs were caused by the leak. The estimate was simply a list of repairs and their costs. Take, for ex- ample, the $3,000 line item for tree removal. The second estimate USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 8 of 9 8 Opinion of the Court 26-12143 did not explain how the tree removal was connected to the leak, which came from the attic. Hull’s testimony was also insufficient to show that the addi- tional repairs were caused by the leak. At his deposition, Hull ad- mitted that he was “not the estimator,” he did not “do the estima- tion,” and he was not involved in “the construction.” Instead, he “just rel[ied] on what other people estimate[d].” Because any opin- ion about the estimated repairs was not his own, Hull had no basis to connect the additional repairs to the covered leak. Without evidence that the additional repairs were caused by a covered loss under the policy, Safeco was entitled to summary judgment. The district court didn’t err by granting summary judg- ment on the breach-of-contract claim. The same is true for the bad-faith claim. To show bad faith, there had to be a genuine dispute that: (1) Hull’s claim for addi- tional damages was covered under the policy; (2) he demanded payment before filing his lawsuit; and (3) Safeco’s failure to pay was motivated by bad faith. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Neisler, 779 S.E.2d 55, 62 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). A failure to pay was motivated by bad faith where “the insurer had no good cause for resisting and delaying payment.” R&G Invs. & Holdings, LLC v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 787 S.E.2d 765, 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). Summary judgment for Safeco was due for two reasons. First, as explained above, the evidence was undisputed that the ad- ditional repairs were not caused by a covered loss under the policy. USCA11 Case: 26-12143 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 9 of 9 26-12143 Opinion of the Court 9 Without a covered claim for additional repairs, Hull could not show bad faith. Second, Safeco had good cause for denying Hull’s claim for additional repairs. Its adjuster conducted an onsite inspection of Hull’s home and found that the additional repairs were not caused by the leak. Hull did not present any evidence that the adjuster’s conclusion was “unfounded” or unreasonable. See Shaffer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 540 S.E.2d 227, 228 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). Without any contrary evidence, we must affirm the summary judg- ment for Safeco on the bad-faith claim. AFFIRMED.