recognizing that the insurer’s conduct is evaluated at the time performance was requested in the context of a challenge to a jury verdict and evidentiary rulings unrelated to post-litigation payments
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the insurer’s conduct is evaluated at the time performance was requested in the context of a challenge to a jury verdict and evidentiary rulings unrelated to post-litigation payments
- finding insurer was estopped from relying on Porter when it (i) unreasonably delayed payment after a “demand” had been made and (ii) encouraged the insurer to pursue another remedy “and then refused payment based on this settlement”
- noting that "[t]he knowledge and belief of the insurer during the time period the claim is being reviewed is the focus of a bad-faith claim" and that therefore, the insurer-defendant could not rely on information that it obtained after it denied the claim
- holding that an insurer has a duty to “conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPALA, Chief Justice,
with whom ALMA WILSON, Justice, joins,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would affirm the trial court’s judgment by holding that the underlying jury verdict is protected against court-ordered remit-titur by Art. 2, § 19, Okla. Const., and by the provisions of 23 O.S.Supp.1986 § 9.
SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., concurring in part, dissenting in part.