|
0595 At the trial of plaintiff's action against his insurer for breach of contract and bad faith in failing to pay his claim following the alleged burglary of oriental rugs which plaintiff held on consignment, it was error for the court to (1) exclude evidence that the consignors of the rugs were unable to document their existence; (2) admit evidence of the insurer's offer to compromise the claim; and (3) refuse to charge that the insurer's reliance on the advice of counsel was a defense to allegations of bad faith.CitationZEITOUNIAN v FARMERS (Missing Rugs) 25 CA4 929 [See: EvC 352, 1152; People v Jones 42 C2 219; State Farm v SuperCt 228 CA3 721]
|
|
