finding that to make out a prima facie case of bad faith, the evidence must show that the plaintiff is entitled to a directed verdict on the contract claim, and therefore is entitled to recover on the contract claim as a matter of law
How later courts described this case
- finding that to make out a prima facie case of bad faith, the evidence must show that the plaintiff is entitled to a directed verdict on the contract claim, and therefore is entitled to recover on the contract claim as a matter of law
- explaining that in order to establish a prima facie case of bad faith, the plaintiff must proffer sufficient evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff is entitled to a directed verdict on the contract claim
- holding that “an insurance contract between the parties and a breach thereof by the defendant” is an element of a “bad faith refusal” claim
- "In the normal case in order for a plaintiff to make out a prima facie case of bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim, the proof offered must show that the plaintiff is entitled to a directed verdict on the contract claim and, thus, entitled to recover on the contract claim as a matter of law."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur completely with the opinion and write separately to elaborate on one point. The opinion correctly prefaces the "directed verdict on the contract claim" standard with the words "In the normal case"; and the phrase "if the evidence produced . . . creates a fact issue . . ." is preceded by the word "Ordinarily." These are significant *Page 1363
qualifications. Certainly, extreme cases will arise in which a fact issue will present a jury question on that claim. This is not the case before us; and, absent such circumstances, the "directed verdict on the contract claim" is the applicable standard for testing the tort of bad faith claim.