“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Judge Mark Bennett, nominated by Donald Trump to the federal court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit, cast the deciding vote in a 2-1 decision that upheld the rejection of a settlement demand from a consumer who had been badly injured by a driver insured by an insurance company. The March 2025 decision was in McGranahan v Geico Indemnity Company.
What happened in this case?
Michael McGranahan was badly injured in an accident involving a car driven by a motorist insured by Geico. The insurance company had information revealing just how serious the injuries were. The company knew from the police report that McGranahan had been severely injured and was unresponsive at the scene, and its own examiner’s notes said the injuries could be fatal. Geico learned from McGranahan’s girlfriend that he had spent two weeks in an intensive care unit, another five weeks in the hospital, and then received care in a rehabilitation facility and on an outpatient basis. Geico also learned from her that McGranahan had a tracheostomy an MRI infection, severe head trauma, a broken jaw, and broken arms requiring plates and screws.
McGranahan sent Geico a letter explaining that he had suffered “significant injuries” and had incurred “over a million dollars” in medical bills. Under its policy, Geico had a duty to defend its insured and a limit of $100,000 in damages. McGranahan offered to settle the case for the $100,000 policy limit. Geico declined without first receiving medical bills and other documentation. McGranahan sued, reached a settlement with the insured, and separately contended that Geico had refused its prior offer to settle in bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, and the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Why was the decision on appeal made possible by Judge Bennett harmful?
Judge Bennett cast the deciding vote in a 2-1 decision that affirmed the lower court. The majority noted that McGranahan failed to provide medical records or other documentation to Geico when he sought to settle the case before filing suit. The majority maintained that as a matter of law, Geico could not be charged with bad faith failure to settle under these circumstances.
Judge Michelle Friedland, who was nominated by President Obama, firmly dissented. She explained that the issue of whether Geico had committed bad faith in refusing to settle the case should have gone to a jury to resolve. A jury could “reasonably find,” she continued, that even without reviewing medical records, Geico “knew or should have known that there was a substantial likelihood that McGranahan’s recovery would exceed the policy limit of $100,000” and thus should have been willing to consider settling the case for more than the limit. Indeed, she wrote that a company claim examiner had noted that the policy limits “are not going to be enough” in the case. Friedland concluded that given how much information GEICO had even without the medical records, a jury could well have found that Geico breached its “implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably refusing to accept” the offer to settle the case for the policy limits.
The opinion made possible by Trump judge Bennett has obviously harmed Michael McGranahan in his effort to obtain full and just compensation for the injuries he suffered. The ruling also sets a precedent that will help insurance companies in cases involving damages exceeding policy limits, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.