covered by its policy of insurance, where the insurer is guilty of negligence or of fraud or bad faith in failing to adjust or compromise the claim to the injury of the insured.” Id. at 343-44, 43 S.E.2d 282. Subsequently, other cases raised the issue of whether the standard was negligence as opposed to bad faith. See, e.g., Smoot v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 F.2d 525 (5th Cir.1962) (noting prior Fifth Circuit cases “go a long way in suggesting that Georgia does not follow the negligence theory” but that a “considerable body of Georgia law found in very pointed expressions in many cases strongly indicates that Georgia may, if it has not already done so, adopt the negligence concept as well”); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 110 Ga.App. 581, 139 S.E.2d 412 (1964) (<HOLDING>). The case most often cited for establishing
holding title company liable for bad faith 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 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 a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second 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