{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.046357615894039736, 'fraction_numerical': 0.049367850692354005, 'mean_word_length': 4.161490683229814, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Tarnished Golden Rule — Why Badillo v. Mid Century Insurance Co. Demands Further Clarification from the Oklahoma Supreme Court Regarding the Tort of Bad Faith

2004 Badillo opinion, and from which this current note was adapted, won the 2004-2005 Gene and Jo Ann Sharp Award for Outstanding Case Note. 2. See Jeffrey E. Thomas, Crisci v. Security Insurance Co.: The Dawn of the Modern Era of Insurance: Bad Faith and Emotional Distress Damages, 2 NEV. L.J. 415, 420 (2002) (noting that 1930 marks one of the earliest insurance bad faith cases on record). 3. Douglas R. Richmond, An Overview of Insurance Bad Faith Law and Litigation, 25 SETON HALL L. REV. 74, 112 (1994). 4. See infra Part II (discussing three decades of Oklahoma bad faith cases that have failed to solidify a lasting legal standard). 5. Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48, 121 P.3d 1080 (per curiam). 6. Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2004 OK 42, withdrawn, 2005 OK 48, 121 P.3d 1080. The Oklahoma Supreme Court originally decided the case in favor of the insurance company in a five-four decision. Interestingly, the year between the issuance of this first opinion and the current opinion saw the retirement of two justices who dissented in the original opinion — Justices Hodges and Boudreau — and the appointment of Justices Taylor and Colbert. Nevertheless, this change in personnel did not seem to affect the final outcome. Badillo II’s majority garnered a six-three vote, including those of both new Justices as well as two votes from Badillo I’s majority — Justices Lavender and Summers. 7. Any future references to “Badillo” in this note refer to the final, 2005 opinion —