Alabama law, and he lacked standing to pursue the action. See H.R.H. Metals, 833 So.2d at 24; Airlines Reporting, 643 So.2d at 954. Furthermore, Cook, as a shareholder, could not maintain an action to redress injuries to Worm Shack based on diminution of Worm Shack’s value as a result of the fire. See Stevens, 643 F.2d at 1080. In sum, we conclude that Cook lacked standing, individually, to either claim entitlement to insurance proceeds himself or challenge Trinity’s denial of Worm Shack’s claim as a breach of contract. Moreover, because Cook could not show that he was entitled to prevail on the underlying contract claim, he was also barred from recovering on a bad faith refusal to pay claim, as a matter of law. See Nat’l Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton, 419 So.2d 1357, 1361-62 (Ala.1982) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the entry of summary
holding that an insurance contract between the parties and a breach thereof by the defendant is an element of a bad faith refusal claim holding that a party cannot claim damages for breach of contract unless he has shown his full compliance with the contract and is not acting in bad faith holding that an insured partys refusal to produce requested documents constituted a breach of the insurance contract holding that improper motive is element of bad faith holding that a bad faith claim is a tort