Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance co. Supreme Court of Arizona 1993 1) Facts a) this claim arises from a three-car accident involving Plaintiff. Defendant is Plaintiff’s automobile insurance provider. Plaintiff received a judgment against him in excess of his policy limits. Plaintiff claims that Defendant acted in bad faith by not settling the claim within the policy limits. Defendant argues that the claim is barred by a release Plaintiff signed. Plaintiff signed the release rather than pursuing a claim against Defendant under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy. His claim arises from a three-car accident involving Plaintiff. Defendant is Plaintiff’s automobile insurance provider. Plaintiff received a judgment against him in excess of his policy limits. Plaintiff claims that Defendant acted in bad faith by not settling the claim within the policy limits. Defendant argues that the claim is barred by a release Plaintiff signed. Plaintiff signed the release rather than pursuing a claim against Defendant under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy. 2) History a) The trial court held verdict against Taylor for 2.5 million b) Court of appeals affirms c) Taylor moved for partial summary judgment but was denied 3) Issues a) Should parole evidence be allowed in this case i) Restrictive view looks just t the writing and use parole evidence for ambiguous things. ii) Corbin: allow all parole evidence and then use it to limit the contract based on the relevance and what is excluded. b) Yes. The extrinsic evidence was properly admitted.When parties have completely expressed their contract in writing, the parol evidence rule bars the admission of extrinsic evidence that contradicts or varies the written contract. c) However, extrinsic evidence may be allowed for the purpose of interpretation.Under the restrictive view, extrinsic evidence may be admitted to aid in interpreting a document if the language is unclear, ambiguous, or vague.The Court adopts the Corbin view, rather than the restrictive view. d) The Corbin view first looks at all the evidence to determine what evidence is relevant to the parties’ intent and the extent of integration. After the intent of the parties has been determined, the court then applies the parol evidence rule and excludes any evidence that contradicts or varies the meaning of the agreement. e) Plaintiff wanted to introduce extrinsic evidence that the release was intended to apply only to the claim under the uninsured motorist provision and not the claim for bad faith. The evidence Plaintiff wants to introduce includes the disparity between the amount Plaintiff received under the release and the amount Plaintiff could potentially recover for the bad faith claim. f) The Court also notes that the language in the release was very limiting whereas broader language could have indicated an intention to include the bad faith claim in the release.Concurrence. The concurring opinion is concerned that the majority opinion does not provide enough guidance for subsequent cases dealing with this same issue. g) The evidence was properly submitted to the jury. They needed interpretation and extrinsic evidence help establish inferences to draw. 4) Judgment: Reversed and Remanded for remaining issues.