Court Opinion

ID: 9823292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:52:13.674569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:18.249046
License: Public Domain

VOROS, Associate Presiding Judge
(concurring):
112 I fully concur in the majority opinion. I write separately only to explain my thinking with respect to one point.
T{13 As stated in the majority opinion, APS's bad faith attorney fee claim rests in part on its allegation that Home Abstract "ginned up a fake document," a suspicious payoff quote sheet (Exhibit 49). The trial court was wary of this document and refused to accord it "the kind of weight" necessary to support Home Abstract's negligent misrepresentation claim. But the court never found that Exhibit 49 was forged or altered. We are thus not in a position to treat the document as forged or altered. However, had the court made such a finding, the bad faith of the party responsible for it would be, in my opinion, glaring.