Opinion ID: 155043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: legal standards and application

Text: 14 This court reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Regional Bank of Colorado v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 35 F.3d 494, 496 (10th Cir.1994). Summary judgment is appropriate only where the pleadings, admissions, and affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Regional Bank of Colorado, 35 F.3d at 496. When applying the summary judgment standard, the court is to examine the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Applied Genetics Int'l Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990). 15 The insurer bears an implied duty to deal fairly and to act in good faith toward the insured. See Oulds v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 1431, 1436 (10th Cir.1993); Christian v. American Home Assurance Co., 577 P.2d 899, 904 (Okla.1978). The insurer does not commit bad faith, however, merely by refusing to pay or by litigating a claim, as long as there is a legitimate dispute as to coverage or as to the amount of the claim, and as long as the insurer's position is reasonable. See Oulds, 6 F.3d at 1436; see also Thompson v. Shelter Mut. Ins., 875 F.2d 1460, 1462 (10th Cir.1989). Until the facts, when construed most favorably against the insurer, have established what might reasonably be perceived as tortious conduct on the part of the insurer, the legal gate to submission of the issue to the jury remains closed. Oulds, 6 F.3d at 1437. 16 As to Bridges' first issue, the trial court did not err in finding the existence of a legitimate dispute over the amount of Bridges' claim under the circumstances. Bridges' settlement brochure raised numerous questions which created a legitimate dispute as to the amount of Bridges' claim. These include questions directed to the origins of Bridges' stomach and back problems, as well as to the length of time Bridges was actually unable to work. No inference of bad faith arises from such legitimate questions and disputes. Oulds, 6 F.3d at 1442. 17 As to Bridges' second issue, there is a dispute whether Bridges made a UM claim to Farmers before the October settlement brochure, either in April or June. That dispute, however, is not one of material fact. Assuming that such a UM claim was made in April or June, the facts reveal nothing in Farmers' response to such alleged claim from which a reasonable inference of bad faith could be drawn. Instead, the facts, as construed in Bridges' favor, reveal a dialogue between the insurer and the insured regarding the possibility of UM payments, a request by the insurer that the insured inform it of the claim amount, and the eventual presentment of such amount by Bridges in the October settlement brochure. Bridges' suggests this court infer that Farmers was motivated to delay, awaiting a settlement with the tortfeasor's carrier. This suggestion, however, is not a substitute for evidence that Farmers failed to timely and appropriately respond to the actual statements, inquiries, and submissions from Bridges' attorney. 18 Accordingly, this court AFFIRMS the summary judgment.