Court Opinion

ID: 9937237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:00:59.831744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:55.485812
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent. I think the case should be reversed as to both Counts III and IV. I say this because of the posture of the proceedings before us. If we were free to exercise a personal belief concerning Plaintiff's statements of his claim, I would be reasonably comfortable with the speculation that Plaintiff cannot prove a bad faith claim under either of these theories; i.e., as a third party beneficiary under these "other" automobile liability insurance policies or by virtue of an alleged settlement agreement with the "other driver's" insurance carrier. But that is just the point: It would be pure
speculation.
Although the Defendant insurer styled its last motion as a "Motion for Summary Judgment," it submitted the motion solely on the "pleadings filed in this action." There is no evidence— not even the insurance policy. The trial judge had previously denied Defendant's motion to dismiss and had denied its motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to dismiss (in typical Mobile pleading style); he then granted summary judgment on precisely the same "file" that he had before him at the time of his two earlier rulings.
For the trial court's premature dismissal of Counts III and IV, I would reverse and remand.