Suzanne Harvey v. Geico General Insurance Company, Respondent. — Canady, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent argues that the court lacked jurisdiction because the district court's decision did not expressly and directly conflict with controlling precedent. On the merits, it would conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a bad-faith verdict because the insurer promptly tendered policy limits, fulfilled its claims-handling obligations, and the insured and claimant controlled other relevant decisions. Justice Polston, dissenting, likewise would dismiss the review for lack of jurisdiction and argues that the district court applied the governing bad-faith framework correctly.