Opinion ID: 1689243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alfa's Argument

Text: Alfa argues that the inconsistent jury verdict is easily corrected by striking that portion of the jury's verdict that it contends is inconsistent with the evidence i.e., striking the jury's finding on the bad-faith claimrather than remanding for a new trial on both claims. Alfa argues that the uncontradicted evidence ... demonstrates that there was not one single claim made by the Poarches that Alfa did not pay and that the plaintiff completely failed to present evidence that Alfa refused to make or delayed in making any payments without a legitimate or arguable reason for such refusal or delay. Further, Alfa argues that it is the law in Alabama that where a defendant insurance company pays a substantial portion of a plaintiffs claim, failure to pay another part will not support an action for bad faith.