With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". partial payment of its $100,000 policy limits and whether that partial payment should be offset for purposes of calculating the amount of post-judgment interest owed on the underlying state court judgment which is awarded here as an additional element of bad faith damages. As explained above, in a bad faith action against an insured titled only to the principal amount of the judgment that exceeds the $100,000 policy limits—$5,730,000—post-judgment interest as an additional element of bad faith damages accrued on the entire principal amount of the 2009 underlying wrongful death judgment of $5,830,000. See O.G.G.A. § 7-4-12(a) (providing that judgments “bear annual interest upon the principal amount recovered ... ”); see also Southern General Ins. Co. v. Ross, 489 S.E.2d at 56 (<HOLDING>) (citing 8A Apple-man Ins. Law & Practice p.

A: holding that court of appeals was without jurisdiction to modify judgment against insurer because judgment against insurer became final when it failed to appeal
B: holding that poliey language stating that insurer will pay all interest accruing on judgment against its insured requires an insurer to pay interest on the entire judgment amount
C: holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer
D: holding that a claim against an insurer for vexatious refusal to pay cannot be maintained where the court finds that the insurer has no duty to defend under the policy
B.