With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In the complaint, plaintiff also alleges that State Farm was negligent in issuing a check to the insureds that did not list plaintiff as a loss payee. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1, ¶ 19. According to plaintiff, State Farm’s policy required it to list plaintiff, as a mortgagee, when it paid proceeds under the policy to the insureds. Id. at ¶ 18. In its motion to dismiss, defendants argue that California' law does not recognize a cause of action for negligence based on an insurer’s handling of a claim. Docket No. 4, at 8 (citing Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc., 72 Cal.App.4th 249, 254, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 (1999) (“Negligence is not among the theories of recovery generally available against insurers.”)); see also Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff now appears to concede that he has

A: holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract
B: recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages
C: holding that negligence alone is not sufficient to constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to insureds
D: recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract
C.