Opinion ID: 1251042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: bad-faith refusal to settle a claim is fairly comprised in the errors assigned for appellate review by gray and tarr's petition in error

Text: Without specifically referencing bad-faith refusal to settle a claim [9] in section D [10] of their joint petition in error, Gray and Tarr challenge as erroneous the nisi prius conclusion that Gray did not have an insurable interest in the property destroyed by fire. The insureds' omission is not fatal to preserving for appellate review bad-faith refusal to pay a claim. That issue is fairly comprised within the appellants' assignment of errors. [11] Republic's refusal to settle Gray's claim is actionable if it can be established that, when the insurer's actions are measured by the facts then known and knowable to it, its failure to recognize Gray's [or Tarr's, if then known as her principal] insurable interest in the covered property was in bad faith. [12] A petition in error should be construed as an entirety. [13] In summarizing the case [14] Gray and Tarr described their legal action as one for bad faith refusal to settle a claim for loss by fire to property in which they had an insurable interest. The statement of issues and errors proposed to be raised on appeal, when read in conjunction with the summary of case, is clearly sufficient to preserve for review the insureds' claim for bad-faith refusal to settle. [15]