, Christine Narvaez drove her automobile onto the parking lot of a busy supermarket. Narvaez had her 2-year-old grandchild with her. The youngster was riding, unconstrained, in a booster seat. Narvaez saw a friend and decided to stop for a brief chat.

/in /by

, Christine Narvaez drove her automobile onto the parking lot of a busy supermarket. Narvaez had her 2-year-old grandchild with her. The youngster was riding, unconstrained, in a booster seat. Narvaez saw a friend and decided to stop for a brief chat.

She parked the car and exited the car, leaving the keys in the ignition and the motor running. The youngster crawled behind the wheel, slipped the car into gear, and set it in motion. The car struck Marguerite ONeill, a woman in her 80s, pinned her between the Narvaez car and another car and slowly crushed the womans trapped body. ONeill suffered a crushed hip, a broken arm, and four cracked ribs, and she lost more than 40 percent of her blood supply as a result of internal bleeding. She spent one month in a hospitals intensive care unit and had to be placed in a nursing home and was deprived of the ability to live independently.Narvaez carried the $ 20,000 minimum amount of liability insurance allowed by law. She was insured by Gallant Insurance Company. ONeills medical bills totaled $105,000. ONeill sued Narvaez and her insurance company, Gallant. ONeills attorney demanded the policy limit of $20,000 from Gallant in settlement of ONeills claim and offered a complete release from liability for Narvaez. Three Gallant insurance adjusters, its claims manager, and the lawyer of the law firm representing Gallant for the case all stated to John Moss, Gallants executive vice president, that Gallant should accept the settlement offer. Moss rejected their advice and refused to settle the case.One year later, on the eve of trial, Moss offered to settle for the $20,000 policy limit, but ONeill then refused. The case went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict against Narvaez of $731,063. Gallant paid $20,000 of this amount, closed its file, and left Narvaez liable for the $711,063 excess judgment. To settle her debt to ONeill, Narvaez assigned her claims against Gallant to ONeill. ONeill then sued Gallant for a bad faith tort for breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that Gallant owed to Narvaez to settle the case.Question:Is Gallant Insurance Company liable for a bad faith tort?Did Gallant act unethically?On Halloween Day, Christine Narvaez drove her automobile onto the parking lot of a busy supermarket. Narvaez had her 2-year-old grandchild with her. The youngster was riding, unconstrained, in a booster seat. Narvaez saw a friend and decided to stop for a brief chat. She parked the car and exited the car, leaving the keys in the ignition and the motor running. The youngster crawled behind the wheel, slipped the car into gear, and set it in motion. The car struck Marguerite ONeill, a woman in her 80s, pinned her between the Narvaez car and another car and slowly crushed the womans trapped body. ONeill suffered a crushed hip, a broken arm, and four cracked ribs, and she lost more than 40 percent of her blood supply as a result of internal bleeding. She spent one month in a hospitals intensive care unit and had to be placed in a nursing home and was deprived of the ability to live independently.Narvaez carried the $ 20,000 minimum amount of liability insurance allowed by law. She was insured by Gallant Insurance Company. ONeills medical bills totaled $105,000. ONeill sued Narvaez and her insurance company, Gallant. ONeills attorney demanded the policy limit of $20,000 from Gallant in settlement of ONeills claim and offered a complete release from liability for Narvaez. Three Gallant insurance adjusters, its claims manager, and the lawyer of the law firm representing Gallant for the case all stated to John Moss, Gallants executive vice president, that Gallant should accept the settlement offer. Moss rejected their advice and refused to settle the case.One year later, on the eve of trial, Moss offered to settle for the $20,000 policy limit, but ONeill then refused. The case went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict against Narvaez of $731,063. Gallant paid $20,000 of this amount, closed its file, and left Narvaez liable for the $711,063 excess judgment. To settle her debt to ONeill, Narvaez assigned her claims against Gallant to ONeill. ONeill then sued Gallant for a bad faith tort for breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that Gallant owed to Narvaez to settle the case.Question:

Needs help with similar assignment?

We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-4 hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Get Answer Over WhatsApp Order Paper Now