People often mix up an excess verdict with an excess judgment. They are close, but not identical. An excess verdict is the jury's award that comes in higher than the defendant's available insurance coverage. An excess judgment is the enforceable court judgment entered after that verdict, also above the policy limits. In everyday use, people blur the two, but the key idea is the same: the case value outran the insurance.

That difference matters because a verdict over policy limits can expose the insured person or business to personal financial risk unless the insurer should have settled earlier and failed to do so. In a serious crash, for example, or a long-term occupational illness claim, damages can climb well past the limits of a liability policy. When that happens, the insurer's claim-handling decisions come under close review.

For an injury claim, an excess verdict can become the backbone of a bad faith case. In West Virginia, Shamblin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (1990) is a leading case on an insurer's duty to act reasonably when deciding whether to settle within policy limits. West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act, W. Va. Code § 33-11-4(9), also sets standards for fair claims handling. If an insurer unreasonably refuses a fair settlement chance and a larger verdict follows, that over-the-limit result may support a later claim for the extra amount.