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 am in complete agreement with the result the opinion of the majority dictates. However, it seems to me the course of this case through the trial court demonstrates the need for the safeguards suggested in my dissent in Vincent v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc. , 373 So.2d 1054 , 1067 , 1068
(Ala. 1979). My views, regarding the safeguards necessitated by the nature of these cases, were repeated in my dissent in Chavers v. National Security Fire Casualty Co. , 405 So.2d 1 , 16 , 17 (Ala. 1981), and in my special concurrence in Aspinwall v. Gowens , on rehearing, 405 So.2d 135, 139 .