Lewis E. Gaskill, Jr. v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company

Fourth Circuit

Lewis E. Gaskill, Jr. v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company

371 F.2d 792

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 16, 1967·No. 10711·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment based upon the District Court’s finding of bad faith on the part of Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company in failing to accept offers, made by the plaintiffs in aji automobile accident case brought against Preferred’s insured, to settle for an amount within the limits of coverage provided by its policy of liability insurance. The court below made detailed and comprehensive findings of subsidiary facts to support the ultimate finding of insurer’s bad faith in conducting negotiations and in refusing offers of settlement.

We affirm on the opinion of the District Court. 1

Affirmed.

1

. Gaskill v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, 251 F.Supp. 66 (D.C.D.Md.1966).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment based upon the District Court’s finding of bad faith on the part of Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company in failing to accept offers, made by the plaintiffs in aji automobile accident case brought against Preferred’s insured, to settle for an amount within the limits of coverage provided by its policy of liability insurance. The court below made detailed and comprehensive findings of subsidiary facts to support the ultimate finding of insurer’s bad faith in conducting negotiations and in refusing offers of settlement.

We affirm on the opinion of the District Court. 1

Affirmed.

1

. Gaskill v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, 251 F.Supp. 66 (D.C.D.Md.1966).

Lewis E. Gaskill, Jr. v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, 371 F.2d 792 (4th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

371 F.2d 792 (Lewis E. Gaskill, Jr. v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related