With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Billings v. Union Bankers Ins. Co., 918 P.2d 461, 464-65 (Utah 1996); Bushey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 164 Vt. 399, 670 A.2d 807, 809 (1995); Warmka v. Hartland Cicero Mut. Ins. Co., 136 Wis.2d 31, 400 N.W.2d 923, 925 (1987); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Shrader, 882 P.2d 813, 825 (Wyo.1994). Although the standard has the benefit of being fairly widespread, we reject it for two reasons. First, adopting the “fairly debatable” standard would not resolve the conflict that we face. A jury finding of bad faith would still be predicated upon a negative proposition — that coverage of the insured’s claim was not fairly debatable. See, e.g., Gilbert, 646 So.2d at 593 (stating that plaintiff in bad faith case must prove “the absence of a debatable reason”); Tokles & Son, 605 N.E.2d at 943 (<HOLDING>); Billings, 918 P.2d at 464-66 (holding that

A: holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
B: holding title company liable for bad faith
C: holding action by judgment creditor of insured against insurer for bad faith failure to settle claim against insured not a direct action within section 1332c proviso
D: holding that insured not liable for bad faith when claim was fairly debatable
D.