Court Opinion

ID: 9885721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:12:53.836505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:56.490087
License: Public Domain

McFarland, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with that portion of the majority opinion that affirms the district court’s determination that Aetna did not act in bad faith in its dealings with its insured. I disagree with the balance of the opinion.
The majority opinion first concludes the district court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Aetna as the insurer did not act in bad faith with its insured. The majority then proceeds to determine whether or not the insured’s claim for bad faith sounds in contract or tort and hence whether or not it could be assigned. Under the circumstances, the determination of these *320issues is a gratuitous and improper appendage to the opinion in the case before us. It would appear that the majority has climbed a tree in order to overrule Syl. ¶ 4 of Heinson v. Porter, 244 Kan. 667, 772 P.2d 778 (1989).
I further disagree with the majority’s determination that the issue of interest beyond ordinary judgment interest is properly before us. The pertinent facts are set forth in the majority opinion. Based upon those facts, I would reach the opposite conclusion.