On the part of the insurance company. If the insurance company failed to settle the suit within the policy limits, when there was an opportunity to do so, it may have been held in “Bad Faith” or failure to negotiate in good faith with the third party (injured entity) on behalf of their insured. A bad faith judgment would make this insurance company liable for more than the policy limits. That’s why demands for policy limits generally carry threats of “Bad Faith”.
the article doesn’t mention what the policy limits were which would have been revealed during the discovery phase of the proceedings. and in fact it doesn’t state the name of the carrier at all, which doesn’t make sense and should be part of the article. if there was insurance, the carrier would have been providing a defense and that should be mentioned. as usual, the article is poorly written.
all the plaintiffs have is a judgement in their favor. show me the money.
A sad and tragic story for sure, but what are the chances of the LaPelusa family’s ever collecting anything more than the Mackie policy limit?
“bad faith” trumps policy limits
What does that mean? Bad faith on whose part?
On the part of the insurance company. If the insurance company failed to settle the suit within the policy limits, when there was an opportunity to do so, it may have been held in “Bad Faith” or failure to negotiate in good faith with the third party (injured entity) on behalf of their insured. A bad faith judgment would make this insurance company liable for more than the policy limits. That’s why demands for policy limits generally carry threats of “Bad Faith”.
True, but I didn’t see any mention of a settlement in the article, either within or outside of policy llimits.
Agree. And had she been wearing a seat belt, would probably be alive today.
Unfortunate but WHERE is the responsibility for her not getting into a car with a drunk driver, with whom she had been sharing those bottles of wine?
I believe that’s the 25%.
the article doesn’t mention what the policy limits were which would have been revealed during the discovery phase of the proceedings. and in fact it doesn’t state the name of the carrier at all, which doesn’t make sense and should be part of the article. if there was insurance, the carrier would have been providing a defense and that should be mentioned. as usual, the article is poorly written.
all the plaintiffs have is a judgement in their favor. show me the money.