Opinion ID: 1805889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bad Faith Claims

Text: Likewise, the summary judgments as to the bad faith claims of Badners and Tindal are due to be affirmed. In Grimes v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., 551 So.2d 329 (Ala.1989), this Court, citing National Security & Casualty Co. v. Bowen, 417 So.2d 179 (Ala.1982), stated: `To succeed in a bad faith refusal case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving: (a) an insurance contract between the parties and a breach thereof by the defendant; (b) an intentional refusal to pay the insured's claim; (c) the absence of any reasonably legitimate or arguable reason for that refusal; (d) the insurer's actual knowledge of the absence of any legitimate or arguable reason; and (e) if the intentional failure to determine the existence of a lawful basis is relied upon, the plaintiff must prove the insurer's intentional failure to determine whether there is a legitimate or arguable reason to refuse to pay the claim.' 551 So.2d at 332. Based on Grimes, we find that Badners and Tindal's bad faith claims against the defendants are without merit. The record shows no insurance contract between the plaintiffs and First Alabama or Grant. Furthermore, the record shows that Prudential did not pay the amount of the term insurance rider because the premium had not been paid; therefore, Prudential had a reasonably legitimate or arguable reason for its failure to pay the amount of the rider. The trial court, therefore, correctly entered summary judgment for the defendants on the bad faith claims.