Opinion ID: 1846468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: National's profit from its misconduct.

Text: National contends that it has not profited from its misconduct because, it argues, it ultimately paid Sockwell the $40,000 UIM benefits that prompted this action. However, as the trial court noted in its posttrial order, National had use of the policy proceeds from September 1998 until April 2000, when Sockwell's claim was eventually paid. During that approximately 17 month period, National benefitted financially from having possession of the policy proceeds through earnings, interest, or through some other form of financial benefit. The exact amount of this profit or gain is unknown. Additionally, evidence was introduced during the trial indicating that, although National knew, even before it denied Sockwell's claim, that certain of the insurance provisions contained in its policy were void under Alabama law, Nationalat least at the time Sockwell's case went to trial continued to retain those provisions in its policy. National stands to profit by leaving such provisions in the insurance policies it issues in this state by repeating the same misconduct that occurred here, with the hope that its misconduct might go unchallenged. Whether National has profited from such conduct is unknown.