After a jury entered a judgment against Jose Santiago for injuries he caused in a collision, Santiago’s liability insurer denied coverage, citing his failure to cooperate and attend trial. Castellanos sought uninsured-motorist benefits from Travelers, which insured the vehicle he was driving, and also claimed bad-faith penalties and attorney fees. The trial court granted Travelers summary judgment and denied Castellanos’s cross-motion, concluding that the record did not show a legally sustainable denial of Santiago’s liability coverage. The Court of Appeals held that Castellanos made a prima facie showing of uninsured-motorist coverage and that Travelers could not shift to him the burden of disproving the liability insurer’s asserted justification for withdrawing coverage. Whether Santiago’s noncooperation legally supported the denial remained a factual question; the record did not establish that his absence from trial was involuntary or excused, or that the failure to cooperate did not prejudice the defense. The court therefore reversed the summary judgment for Travelers but affirmed the denial of Castellanos’s motion because bad faith remained for the jury. Judge McMillian dissented, joined by Presiding Judge Andrews and Judge Ray, reasoning that Castellanos had to establish a legally sustainable denial as part of his prima facie coverage case.