# Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 3, 1991 · 62 O.B.A.J. 3671

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560855

## Case

- **Full name:** James C. BUZZARD and Martha N. Buzzard, Individually and as Parents and Next of Kin of Troy Dean Buzzard, Deceased, Appellees, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and Farmers Insurance Exchange D/B/A Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 3, 1991
- **Citations:** 62 O.B.A.J. 3671; 824 P.2d 1105; 1991 OK 127; 1991 Okla. LEXIS 139; 1991 WL 253096
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Opala
- **Judges:** Summers, Opala, Hodges, Lavender, Doolin, Garrett, Kauger, Wilson, Simms, Hargrave
- **Cited by:** 139 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560855

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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.”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560855. Public record. Not legal advice.