In Club Exchange Corp. v. Searing, 222 Kan. 659, 567 P.2d 1353, 1356 (Kan. 1977), the trial court dismissed the insurer's promptly filed interpleader action because the claimants had direct claims against the insured and not the insurer. In reversing dismissal, the supreme court held that "where, as here, an insurance carrier is faced with multiple unliquidated claims, far in excess of its contractual liability, then even in the absence of a 'direct action' statute, interpleader is an appropriate remedy, so long as the insurer acts promptly and in good faith." Id. at 1357 Under these circumstances, insurer could well have notified all of the potential claimants involved that the value of the claims would doubtless exceed policy limits, and invite them or their attorneys to participate jointly in efforts to reach agreement as to the disposition of the available funds. Alternatively, insurer could have attempted to settle claims within the policy limits as they were presented. Or as a third alternative, insurer could have promptly and in good faith commenced an interpleader action, and paid its policy limits into court.