In Badillo v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48, 121 P.3d 1080, an insured whose policy limits were only $ 10,000, hit a pedestrian with his truck, causing her serious injuries. The pedestrian's claim involved probable liability and damages greatly exceeding the policy limits. Id. The policy gave the insurer authority to settle any claim for the liability coverage "as it deemed appropriate." Id. The insurer forced the injured third party to file a lawsuit by declining reasonable requests concerning the investigation and settlement of the liability claim, failed to inform its insured of the requests, and in the process actually exposed its insured to excess liability. When the injured party filed suit against the insured, the insurer provided him legal counsel at its expense. The injured party received a verdict for $ 1 million, which was reduced to $ 600,000 in accordance with the jury's finding of 40% contributory negligence. The insurer tendered the policy limits, reducing the judgment against the insured by $ 10,000. The insured pursued a claim against insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, which, on trial to a jury, resulted in a $ 2.2 million verdict in his favor for financial losses, embarrassment and mental pain and suffering. Badillo presented the Oklahoma Supreme Court with the opportunity to examine Christian and later cases and to clarify the level of culpability necessary for liability to attach to an insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in relation to a third-party claim. Id. It is "more than simple negligence, but less than the reckless conduct necessary to sanction a punitive damage award." Id. The Court in Badillo concluded that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the jury and affirmed the $ 2.2 million in damages awarded to the insured. Id. The Court discussed the minimum level of culpability necessary to warrant a punitive damages recovery against an insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Court stated: "Under 23 O.S. Supp. 2004 9.1, for punitive damages to be allowed there must be evidence, at a minimum, of reckless disregard toward another's rights from which malice and evil intent may be inferred. . . . Whether that showing has been made remains an issue of law for the trial court in its role as gatekeeper to determine, upon a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence via a motion for directed verdict, whether there is competent evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find reckless disregard, from which malice and evil intent may be inferred." (Badillo, 2005 OK 48 at P 66, 121 P.3d at 1106.)