With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". bad-faith claim "each arose from a separate transaction" for res judicata purposes. Heyden v. Safeco Title Ins., No. 89-0902, unpublished slip op. at 6 (Nov. 20, 1989). 3 No appellate court in Wisconsin has expressly decided whether the tort of "bad faith" may be based on an insurance company's failure to pay a claim under a title-insurance policy. Courts elsewhere make no distinction between title insurance and other types of insurance insofar as the insurer's obligation resolve an insured's claim in good faith, see, e.g., White v. Western Title Ins. Co., 710 P.2d 309, 316 (Cal. 1985) ("A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every insurance contract... including title insurance.") (citations omitted); Lipinski v. The Title Ins. Co., 655 P.2d 970, 976-978 (Mont. 1982) (<HOLDING>); neither do we. 4 The trial court explained:

A: holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
B: holding that insured not liable for bad faith when claim was fairly debatable
C: holding title company liable for bad faith
D: holding insurer not liable for bad faith when it denied insureds claim based on a good faith dispute regarding the interpretation of a rule
C.