# Glenn v. Fleming

> Supreme Court of Kansas · September 28, 1990 · 247 Kan. 296

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9885721

## Case

- **Full name:** Everett Glenn, Appellant, v. Dale Fleming, Defendant, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellee, v. Randall Weller, Defendant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Kansas
- **Decided:** September 28, 1990
- **Citations:** 247 Kan. 296; 799 P.2d 79; 1990 Kan. LEXIS 159
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McFarland
- **Judges:** Six
- **Cited by:** 138 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/9885721

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that failure to accept policy limits offer within two weeks allowed was not evidence of bad faith where “the case was less than four months old. Discovery had scarcely begun. There were several defendants . . . no report of the incident was submitted . . . [to the insu…
- stating that “a wrongful failure to settle arises from the insurer’s contractual obligation to defend” and “[a]n action to enforce that obligation is accordingly based on breach of contract.”
- finding no bad faith where insurer rejected policy limit offer that was "premature, had conditions attached to it, and was only open for two weeks.”

## Opinion text

McFarland, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with that portion of the majority opinion that affirms the district court’s determination that Aetna did not act in bad faith in its dealings with its insured. I disagree with the balance of the opinion.
The majority opinion first concludes the district court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Aetna as the insurer did not act in bad faith with its insured. The majority then proceeds to determine whether or not the insured’s claim for bad faith sounds in contract or tort and hence whether or not it could be assigned. Under the circumstances, the determination of these *320 issues is a gratuitous and improper appendage to the opinion in the case before us. It would appear that the majority has climbed a tree in order to overrule Syl. ¶ 4 of Heinson v. Porter, 244 Kan. 667 , 772 P.2d 778 (1989).
I further disagree with the majority’s determination that the issue of interest beyond ordinary judgment interest is properly before us. The pertinent facts are set forth in the majority opinion. Based upon those facts, I would reach the opposite conclusion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9885721. Public record. Not legal advice.