ORDER

JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Geico General Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (Dkt. 7) and Plaintiff's opposition (Dkt. 9). Upon consideration, Geico's motion (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED.

Background

In this bad faith action, Plaintiff alleges that Geico, his automobile insurance carrier, failed to settle an underlying case against him and that as a result of Geico's bad faith handling of the claim, a jury returned a verdict against him. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 5-7). As a result of the verdict, a Second Amended Final Judgment and Final Judgment on Taxable Costs were entered against him on June 29, 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11). This case was filed on February 7, 2017, more than four years after the Second Amended Final Judgment and Final Judgment on Taxable Costs were entered.

Geico moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff's bad faith claim is barred by the four year statute of limitations under Florida law. (Dkt. 7). Plaintiff counters that the statute of limitations is five years. (Dkt. 9).

Standard

A "dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is appropriate only if it is `apparent from the face of the complaint' that the claim is time-barred." La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). In this case, it is.

Discussion

Florida common law recognizes a cause of action for bad faith in the context of third-party actions where "`an insured sues his liability insurance company for bad faith in failing to settle a claim which ultimately results in a third-party judgment against him in excess of the policy limits.'"1 QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apartment Ass'n, Inc., 94 So.3d 541, 545 (Fla. 2012) (citations omitted). In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the law relating to bad faith insurance claims. 658 So.2d 55, 57 (Fla. 1995).

Relevant here, Laforet recognized that actions for breach of insurance contracts "were treated the same as any other breach of contract action," until liability insurance policies replaced traditional indemnity insurance policies and insurers undertook the obligation of defending their insureds. Id. In undertaking that obligation, insurers assumed a fiduciary relationship with their insureds.2 Id. And "courts began to recognize that insurers `owed a duty to their insureds to refrain from acting solely on the basis of their own interests in settlement.'" Id. at 58 (quoting Roger C. Henderson, The Tort of Bad Faith in First-Party Insurance Transactions: Refining the Standard of Culpability and Reformulating the Remedies by Statute, 26 U.Mich.J.L.Ref. 1, 21 (Fall 1992)).3 "[T]his duty became known as the `exercise of good faith' or the `avoidance of bad faith.'" Id. (quoting Henderson, supra, 26 U. Mich. J. L. Ref. at 22).4 This "obligation amounts to a fiduciary duty requiring the exercise of good faith." Doe on Behalf of Doe v. Allstate Ins. Co., 653 So.2d 371, 373-74 (Fla. 1995); see also Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So.2d 665, 668 (Fla. 2004) (liability insurance carrier owed a fiduciary duty to act in insured's best interest in defending case).

The policy issued by Geico is attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint, and provides that Geico "will pay damages which an insured becomes legally obligated to pay" and "will defend any suit for damages payable under the terms of this policy." (Dkt. 1-1 at 17). The policy is therefore a liability policy, rather than an indemnity policy, placing Geico in a fiduciary relationship with its insured.

Plaintiff alleges that Geico acted in its own interests, disregarding Plaintiff's interests, while defending him (Dkt. 1 ¶ 19). Plaintiff's common law bad faith claim therefore arises from Geico's alleged breach of its fiduciary duty. QBE Ins. Corp., 94 So. 3d at 545; Berges, 896 So. 2d at 668; State Farm, 658 So. 2d at 57; Allstate Ins. Co., 653 So. 2d at 373-74. In Florida, a breach of fiduciary duty is considered a tort. Doe v. Evans, 814 So.2d 370, 374 (Fla. 2002) ("`[a] fiduciary who commits a breach of his duty as a fiduciary is guilty of tortious conduct to the person for whom he should act. . . . [T]he liability is not dependent solely upon an agreement or contractual relation between the fiduciary and the beneficiary but results from the relation.'") (emphasis added, omissions in original), (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874 cmt. b (1979)).

Under Florida law, "[b]reach of fiduciary duty is an intentional tort subject to a four-year statute of limitations." Woodward v. Woodward, 192 So.3d 528, 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), review dismissed, No. SC16-1281, 2016 WL 5395722 (Fla. Sept. 27, 2016) (quoting Patten v. Winderman, 965 So.2d 1222, 1224 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (2006); Berg v. Wagner, 935 So.2d 100, 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))); see also State Farm, 658 So.2d at 58 ("the tort of bad faith occur[s] between an insurer and its insured").

A four year statute of limitations therefore applies to Plaintiff's common law bad faith claim. This action is barred by the statute of limitations, since it was brought more than four years after the underlying judgment was entered against Plaintiff, as is apparent from the face of the Complaint. Accordingly, Geico's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The CLERK is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED.