in good faith. FFG, a captive, entered into the Administration Agreement with Federal, to whom it delegated the primary control of the claims-handling process. This included the authority “to receive, review and evaluate any Claims” brought under the Policy, (Administration Agreement § 2(A)), and “to interpret [Policy] language, make [Policy] coverage decisions, and to settle covered Claims for any amount up to the [Policy] limits.” (Id. § 2(C).) In a sense, FFG “controlled” Federal’s authority by requiring express written authority before Federal could deny, negotiate, adjust, or settle a claim, (id. § 2(A)), but the “ultimate disposition” of claims was nevertheless Federal’s call to make. (Id. § 2(E)); see Dellaira v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 136 N.M. 552, 102 P.3d 111, 114-16 (App.2004) (<HOLDING>). FFG simply was responsible for maintaining
holding that bad faith handling of an insureds claim fell within the act holding that an administrator that has control over and makes the ultimate determination regarding the merits of an insureds claim must act in good faith in processing the insureds claims holding that insurance company could sue in insureds name following assignment of insureds interest against tortfeasor holding that the district court erred in dismissing the injured party from the insureds declaratory relief action based on a default judgment entered against the insured and the insureds tortfeasor son holding insurer not liable for bad faith when it denied insureds claim based on a good faith dispute regarding the interpretation of a rule