In order to explain that there is no inconsistency between concurring with the majority in this case and dissenting inChavers [v. National Security Fire Cas. Ins. Co.,405 So.2d 1], I would note that the facts in this case are greatly more probative of the tort of bad faith than are those in Chavers. I would also note that, although the trial court made no express determination as a matter of law that the facts in this case justified submitting to the jury the question of whether those facts satisfied the standards of recovery set forth in Chavers, and in this writer's dissent in Vincent v. Blue Cross-BlueShield of Alabama, Inc., 373 So.2d 1054 (Ala. 1979), such determination was implicit in the trial court's submission of the case to the jury under proper instructions.