The title of this blog is The Summary Judgment. Fittingly, the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals published a stunning example of summary judgment jurisprudence run amok. The simple issue in State Farm v. Duckworth was whether a family that entered into an automobile insurance contract in Maryland had given the insurance company reasonable notice that they permanently moved to Florida. The court accepted as true that the insured told State Farm that they intended to and did actually move to Florida. (Tragically, Mr. Duckworth was killed in a motorcycle accident, in his new home state of Florida). Despite this admission by State Farm and the court, the majority then concluded that the Duckworths’ later actions “overwhelmingly” indicated to State Farm that their move to Florida was not necessarily permanent.

In law school we learned that summary judgment can only be granted when there are no facts in dispute and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon those undisputed facts. In our respective law practices, we learned that summary judgment is routinely granted when the trial judge believes that one party is right and the other party is wrong. Here, the trial judge and two appellate judges ruled that the evidence was “overwhelming.” But who cares? Since when did “overwhelming” evidence become tantamount to undisputed evidence?

But hey, I’m not the one taking the majority to task. Judge Carnes, in dissent, rightly criticizes his colleagues for doing what has become commonplace in federal court: “[I]it is often tempting for a district court judge to grant, and for appellate judges to affirm, summary judgment even when there is conflicting evidence on a material issue. The temptation is for the judge to take on the task of finding facts and enter judgment based on what the judge believes a jury should find.” About the only actual undisputed fact in this sad death case is that the insured told State Farm that they intended to move to Florida and that they did in fact move to Florida. This fact alone requires a jury trial.

Fact-finding, historically and constitutionally reserved for the jury, is made by the trial judge after reviewing deposition testimony, affidavits and documents. But a trial judge who rules in favor of a party based upon a piece of paper never views the witnesses. She never sees a witness who shakes her hand when taking the oath, who gets flushed when asked tough questions, who takes too long to answer simple questions and who looks over to her own attorney while testifying. Juries (like people) are persuaded by body language, tone and demeanor. Trial judges review a sanitized record — litigants have the unfortunate dilemma of living in the real world.