and the insured jointly. There are no provisions of the policy under which the insured has any right to make any determination as to his own liability. His fear as to being the subject of a civil suit is groundless since the company is obligated to defend any suit filed against him, even though it be frivolous. Id. at 817-18. In another Louisiana Circuit Court of Appeal case, however, the court noted that a “no action clause [stating that an insured has no action against the insurer if the insured breaches the terms of the insurance policy] has been held to be of no effect when an insurer denies coverage where there is coverage, or unjustifiably delays settlement, forcing the insured to settle separately.” Emile M. Babst Co. v. Nichols Constr. Corp., 488 So.2d 699, 708 (La.Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Under a broad reading of Danrik’s argument,
holding that after a reasonable investigation an insurer must promptly settle a claim for the value or within the range assigned to the claim as a result of its investigation holding bad faith not merely negligence must be proved if insurer is to be held liable for damages over policy limits for refusing to settle holding that under montana common law an insurer cannot be held liable for bad faith in denying a claim if the insurer had a reasonable basis for contesting the claim holding that insured cannot bring an action against its insurer for bad faith failure to settle a claim in the absence of an excess verdict holding the insurer liable for failing to settle the claim when time was of the essence