Opinion ID: 1448289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: NPIC's Contentions

Text: NPIC argues that if its coverage defenses are valid, any bad faith claim against it is disposed of. We have held against NPIC on the coverage issue. Alternatively, NPIC argues that it at least had a good faith basis for its coverage defenses, which would also negate a finding of bad faith. We have ruled that NPIC's assertion of a good faith denial of coverage is for the district court to decide on remand. NPIC contends that it owed no duty to disclose its coverage position to Americold until the National Union coverage was exhausted. However, NPIC disclosed its coverage position in response to Americold's request for settlement within policy limits, which occurred before exhaustion of National Union's coverage. NPIC reasons that it should not be liable for damages over the policy limits when Americold suffered no harm, even assuming NPIC's conduct was in bad faith. NPIC acknowledges that Richmond advised that the case had a settlement value between $20 and $25 million and was defensible. NPIC also asserts that it was guided by advice of counsel and quotes Wall, § 5.10, p. 209, which states that evidence that the insurer followed advice of counsel is admissible on the issue of bad faith in settlement.