Court Opinion

ID: 9696921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:01:37.551084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:27.701737
License: Public Domain

McEWEN, President Judge,
concurring:
¶ 1 Since the author of the opinion of decision has provided, in his usual fashion, a careful analysis and perceptive expression of view, I hasten to join in each of the conclusions reached in that opinion, and write only to emphasize that our decision today does not preclude a finding, under circumstances differing from those of the instant case, that an insurer has a duty to make a partial payment of a UM or UIM claim when timely requested by the insured, where there can be no dispute as to the entitlement of the insured to the amount requested under the policy1 even where the insured contends that additional sums are due under the terms of the policy-

. If a widow were to make a claim for UM benefits under a policy insuring her husband, and the only dispute between the parties was whether the policy was subject to stacking. the failure of the insurer to pay the amount not in dispute upon demand of the insured would, in my opinion, constitute bad faith.