Opinion ID: 2559133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Declaratory Judgment Appeal

Text: Defendant appealed and, in an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division reversed the entry of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor and remanded the case to the Law Division. [9] In short, the Appellate Division concluded that, [v]iewing the record, as we must, in a light most favorable to [defendant] up to the time before the jury's verdict, it appears that there were countervailing factors that led [defendant] to be more hopeful about its chances of containing the exposure at or below $300,000. It noted that there are genuine fact-sensitive determinations that need to be made about the reasonableness of [defendant]'s handling of settlement negotiations in the underlying tort action. That assessment of reasonableness will hinge, to some degree, upon the credibility and persuasiveness of fact witnesses. It may also depend upon the testimony of expert witnesses opining about what went wrong here on the settlement front and why it went wrong. Prudence dictates that these pivotal questions of reasonableness and bad faith be decided in this case after a full-blown evidentiary presentation before the factfinder. By no means are we saying that summary judgment in favor of an insured is never appropriate in a bad faith case, but simply that there is enough proof on both sides of the ledger here to warrant a plenary disposition. [(footnote omitted).] The panel then turned to the question of who the appropriate factfinder will be. It explained that no reported cases in New Jersey have clarified whether bad faith claims in this context should be heard by a judge or by a jury. However, [g]iven the absence of full briefing on the issue, and the respective tactical judgments that both parties presumably would want to undertake after their receipt and review of this opinion, the Appellate Division demurred, electing to leave it to the trial court on remand to resolve any dispute over whether the factfinder in the remand proceeding should be a jury or the court. [10] Plaintiff sought certification, which was granted but limited to the issue of whether an insured's claims of bad faith against its insurer under [ Rova Farms ] are to be decided by a judge or jury. Wood, supra, 205 N.J. at 13, 11 A. 3d 372. The parties, but not amici, were granted leave to file supplemental briefs addressing the limited certified question.