David Madison Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-14521
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cv-02240-JA-GJK
DAVID MADISON CAWTHORN,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
versus
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant–Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 14, 2021)
Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On December 29, 2016, David Madison Cawthorn brought a third-party bad
faith claim under Florida law against Auto-Owners Insurance Company for its
USCA11 Case: 20-14521 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
failure to initiate timely settlement negotiations with him. The United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered summary judgment for the
Insurance Company because Cawthorn failed to show an essential element of his
claim—the existence of an excess judgment. Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.,
No. 616CV2240ORL28GJK, 2018 WL 1996835, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27,
2018), aff’d, 791 F. App’x 60 (11th Cir. 2019). Cawthorn appealed and we agreed
with the District Court that the lack of an excess judgment doomed Cawthorn’s
claim, not only because it was an essential element, but also because it was a
prerequisite to the existence of an Article III “case or controversy.” Cawthorn v.
Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 791 Fed. App’x 60, 66 (11th Cir. 2019).
Cawthorn recognized that no case or controversy means the District Court
was without jurisdiction to enter a judgment on the merits, and accordingly moved
the District Court to vacate its summary judgment order and dismiss the case
without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). But the District
Court denied his motion. Cawthorn now appeals, arguing the District Court’s
refusal to vacate its summary judgment order was error.
Federal courts are without power to enter a judgment on the merits in cases
where subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. Crowell v. Hockman-Lewis Ltd., 734
F.2d 767, 769 (11th Cir. 1984). When a Court enters a judgment that it lacked the
power to enter, the judgment is void. Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th
USCA11 Case: 20-14521 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Rule 60(b)(4) is the appropriate vehicle for a party to
seek relief from such a judgment. Id. Because we held there was no Article III
“case or controversy” before the District Court, the proper response was for the
District Court to vacate its summary judgment order and dismiss the case without
prejudice. Crowell, 734 F.2d at 769. The Court therefore erred when it denied
Cawthorn’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
VACATE AND DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
USCA11 Case: 20-14521 Date Filed: 07/14/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --