upholding a jury verdict against an insurance company where its officers and employees knew of and discussed the substantial difference in the initial $24,000 premium and the initial $12,000 cash surrender value that ultimately served as the basis of the fraud action
How later courts described this case
- upholding a jury verdict against an insurance company where its officers and employees knew of and discussed the substantial difference in the initial $24,000 premium and the initial $12,000 cash surrender value that ultimately served as the basis of the fraud action
- life insurance company owed duty to communicate to the plaintiff the unusual and financially imprudent nature of the requested annuity because the life insurance company was in a superior bargaining position and had particular knowledge and expertise not shared by the plaintiff
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
This Court's creation of the tort of bad faith, and this Court's authorization of verdicts such as the one rendered in this case, convince me again that the Legislature should address the policy ramifications on insurance companies and policyholders. As I stated in my dissent in Continental Assurance Co. v. Kountz , 461 So.2d 802 (Ala. 1984), I believe an award of extracontractual damages probably would solve what I believe to be a serious public policy problem, but my view has not been adopted by the majority of the Court, and I cannot personally see how the verdict here is more "shocking" than that upheld in Aetna v. Lavoie , 470 So.2d 1060 (Ala. 1984).
I have expressed in the best language possible why I think that the majority has erred in the past, but I question whether I should continue to insist on a view which obviously is not a majority view.
While I would vote to grant a remittitur in this case, I cannot conscientiously say that this verdict is more shocking than others this Court has approved. Consequently, I concur specially to express my individual view.