With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “misrepresenting] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue”). Unlike the district court, however, we conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a genuine issue of fact remains as to whether Defendant conducted a reasonable investigation of Plaintiffs’ claim, as required by Montana Code Annotated section 33-18-201(4). See Lorang v. Fortis Ins. Co., 345 Mont. 12, 192 P.3d 186, 217 (2008) (“[T]he reasonableness of an insurer’s investigation is a factual issue which ordinarily must be resolved by the jury.”). The district court- correctly held that, in general, an insurance company may rely on a reasonable investigation conducted by the insured’s lawyer. See Ensey v. Colo. Cas., 306 Mont. 68, 30 P.3d 350, 352 (2001) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, there is a triable

A: holding that an insurer can deny benefits based on late notice by the insured only when the insurer is prejudiced by the delay
B: holding that a defense lawyer retained to represent the insured can act on behalf of the insurer to fulfill obligations under section 201 of the utpa
C: holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured
D: 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
B.