Opinion ID: 1702044
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Knight's Claim.

Text: ¶ 20. Taking the record as a whole, the claim the trial court allowed Knight to pursue against USF&G may be fairly stated as follows: A. USF&G had a contractual obligation, under the circumstances of this case, to either (1) consent to the $25,000 settlement offered by State Farm to Knight, thereby waiving USF&G's statutory and contractual subrogation rights; or (2) fund the settlement by payment of $25,000 to Knight, and proceed to attempt to recover the payment from either Boyett or State Farm; B. USF&G breached the contract by its refusal to do either; and C. The breach was in bad faith. ¶ 21. Also from the record, we conclude that USF&G defended by claiming it had no obligation, contractual or otherwise, to approve or fund the settlement. Alternatively, if it did, it was not breached because of its offer to advance $25,000 to Knight. Alternatively, if it did breach an obligation, it did not do so in bad faith. USF&G raises numerous other assignments of error which we need not address.