Court Opinion

ID: 9935309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:55:42.096627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:17.966775
License: Public Domain

This Court's creation of the tort of bad faith, and this Court's authorization of verdicts such as the one rendered in this case, convince me again that the Legislature should address the policy ramifications on insurance companies and policyholders. As I stated in my dissent in ContinentalAssurance Co. v. Kountz, 461 So.2d 802 (Ala. 1984), I believe an award of extracontractual damages probably would solve what I believe to be a serious public policy problem, but my view has not been adopted by the majority of the Court, and I cannot personally see how the verdict here is more "shocking" than that upheld in Aetna v. Lavoie, 470 So.2d 1060 (Ala. 1984).
I have expressed in the best language possible why I think that the majority has erred in the past, but I question whether I should continue to insist on a view which obviously is not a majority view.
While I would vote to grant a remittitur in this case, I cannot conscientiously say that this verdict is more shocking than others this Court has approved. Consequently, I concur specially to express my individual view.