to plaintiff, for which relief is sought, arising from an interlocked series of transac-tions_” Id. at 14, 71 S.Ct. at 540. The single wrong was the failure to pay insurance; the plaintiff could not recover more than once. The test, therefore, for separateness is the separateness of the wrong to the plaintiff. This provision requires independence as well as separateness. We have held that a claim is not independent if it “involve[s] ‘substantially the same facts.’ ” Addison v. Gulf Coast Contracting Servs., 744 F.2d 494, 500 (5th Cir.1984) (quoting American Fire, 341 U.S. at 16, 71 S.Ct. at 541). For example, if one claim depends on establishing liability under the other, the two cannot be found to be independent. See Moore v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 819 F.2d 101, 104 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). In making all determinations of separateness
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 action by judgment creditor of insured against insurer for bad faith failure to settle claim against insured not a direct action within section 1332c proviso 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 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 a plaintiffs negligence claim against a driver and her bad faith claim against the drivers insurer under mca  33182016 are separate and independent for purposes of 28 usc  1441c