With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Training Stables, Inc., 719 P.2d at 533. Accordingly, the court dismisses Defendants’ CPA claim concerning Cornhusker’s alleged violation of WAC 284-30-330(2). Hi. Compelling a first party claimant to initiate or submit to litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such action This claim fails in light of the court’s foregoing rulings. Because Defendants have failed to create a genuine dispute with respect to coverage, see supra Part III.B.l.b., they cannot show that Corn-husker compelled SQI to submit to litigation by offering substantially less in settlement than the amount ultimately recovered on the Policy in this litigation. See WAC 284- 2JLR, 2013 WL 1562032, at *3 (W.D.Wash. Apr. 12, 2013) (<HOLDING>))); but see Seaway Props., LLC v. Fireman’s

A: holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint  was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits
B: holding that an unreasonably low settlement offer amounts to a denial of benefits under ifca
C: holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits
D: holding that the trial courts denial of appellants motion to enforce settlement agreement constituted an important issue
B.