Court Opinion

ID: 9577849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:38:41.899818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:21.829585
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s resolution of the main appeal (Case No. 71759) and in the rationale therefor as set forth in Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of the majority opinion. However, because I believe that the trial court erred in failing to submit to the jury the question of plaintiff’s entitlement to bad faith damages under OCGA § 33-7-11 (j), I must dissent to the affirmance of the cross-appeal. (Case No. 71760.) The majority holds that because the parties, in negotiating for a pretrial settlement, treated the husband’s claim and the wife’s claim collectively, the verdict against the wife’s claim demanded a conclusion as a matter of law that the refusal of the insurer to pay the loss within 60 days was not in bad faith. There is absolutely no authority for the position taken by the majority. In the first place, this is not one of the cases coming under statutory provisions specifically conditioning a recovery of an extra amount upon the excess of a verdict over an offer. See, e.g., OCGA § 51-12-14. Furthermore, the plaintiff-husband received a verdict in the amount of $6,492.54 general damages, $1,336.62 medical expenses, and $939.84 loss of wages. The amount of the verdict exceeded any demand by the plaintiffs and was greatly in excess of any offer made by the insurer. In any event, the record contains ample evidence from which a factfinder could determine that the insurer acted in bad faith in refusing to pay the claims made. Because I believe it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiff-husband is not entitled to bad faith damages, I must dissent to that portion of the majority opinion.
*549Decided June 30, 1986.
Jonathan C. Peters, William D. Strickland, for appellant (case no. 71759).
Robert A. Falanga, for appellees.
Robert A. Falanga, for appellant (case no. 71760).
Malcolm S. Murray, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Judge Beasley joins in this opinion.