Opinion ID: 886954
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 2 1. Does the jury verdict in favor of the insureds in the underlying case, appealed and later released as part of a settlement reserving bad faith claims, provide Continental and MCS with a reasonable basis defense to Karen Graf's subsequent UTPA claim as a matter of law? ¶ 3 2. Does the jury verdict in favor of the insureds in the underlying case provide Continental and MCS with a collateral estoppel defense to Karen Graf's subsequent UTPA claim? ¶ 4 3. Did the District Court err in determining that all facts raised in Karen Graf's bad faith case were known to her before she settled her underlying claim; and that since she could have brought her allegations of misconduct to the attention of the District Court by way of a Rule 60(b) motion, she is foreclosed from proceeding with at UTPA claim? ¶ 5 4. Did the District Court err in finding, as a material undisputed fact, that Continental concluded that the liability of its insureds was not reasonably clear in part based upon the opinions of its trucking expert, Gene Breeden?