its failure to settle, “the insured[’s] assignee is entitled as a matter of law to recover damages equal to the amount by which the judgment exceeds policy coverage.” Brightman, 568 S.E.2d at 501-02. Thus, in each of the cases discussed above at pages 34-37, 44-45, the damages sought and awarded included the underlying judgment minus the policy limits paid by the insurance company plus interest and costs. As a its $100,000 policy limits toward satisfaction of . the judgment, $492,155.82 in interest had accrued. Thus, because Nationwide’s payment of $100,000 was less than the $492,155.82 in accrued interest on the judgment as of February 23, 2011, the $100,000 partial payment did not' reduce the principal amount and did not abate the accrual of additional interest on that' amount. Id. (<HOLDING>). While Plaintiffs in the bad faith action are
holding that where payment toward judgment was for less than the total amount of principal and interest  owed that payment then did not terminate the accrual of interest on the remaining principal holding that the term reverse payment is not limited to a cash payment holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment  although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment  since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim holding that agency relationship existed where principal paid plaintiff directly and written agreement stated agent was signing on behalf of principal holding that a declaratory judgment action was not the proper forum for the principal to make its bad faith argument which instead is properly asserted as a defense to the suretys claim against the principal for indemnification