Opinion ID: 1187797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Do Any Genuine Issues of Material Fact Relevant to Michael Raymer Preclude Summary Judgment for Tammy Raymer?

Text: State Farm contends that the genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment for Michael also should have prevented entry of partial summary judgment for Tammy. Beyond State Farm's argumentsaddressed separatelythat Tammy may not be innocent and that public policy demands that she should not recover because her award may benefit Michael, State Farm's only remaining contention is that the superior court should have denied summary judgment to Tammy on her contract claim for the same reason it denied summary judgment on the Raymers' bad faith claim. The superior court found that, [i]n view of the ongoing investigation of Mr. Raymer, the Court finds that it is a material question of fact whether State Farm's failure to pay Tammy Raymer's claim amounted to bad faith. State Farm does not explain why genuine disputes about State Farm's alleged bad faith were material to the breach of contract claim. A mere absence of bad faith is not in itself a defense to a contract claim. State Farm does not elaborate on this argument, and we see no merit in it.