concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree a new trial is in order. Howeyer, the Nobles should not be precluded from retrying the issue of State Farm's bad faith in handling their claim for under-insured benefits under the Underlying Policy.
Whether State Farm acted in bad faith when it delayed payment of the Nobles! claim is a question appropriately resolved by the trier of fact and not a reviewing court. I believe the majority is reweighing the evidence when it concludes State Farm did not act in bad faith with regard to the coverage provided by the Underlying Policy.
The majority concludes State Farm's offer of $40,000.00 was reasonable. But even if it was, there remain issues of State Farm's bad faith in the form of its delay in scheduling an independent medical examination, its selection of a non-independent arbitrator, and its failure to complete a claim evaluation sheet in violation of its own policies. These events occurred while State Farm was handling the Nobles' claim under the Underlying Policy, and it is the jury's role to determine whether State Farm's actions show bad faith.
*936I must therefore respectfully dissent on this issue.