With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (“UTPA”) and the common law. Reviewing de novo, Alexander Mfg., Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 984, 986 (9th Cir.2009), we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to attempt a good-faith settlement, as required by the UTPA and common law. Plaintiffs fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether liability was reasonably clear. See Mont.Code Ann. § 33-18-201(6) (providing that an insurer has a duty “to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear”); Palmer ex rel. Diacon v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 261 Mont. 91, 861 P.2d 895, 903 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Lead counsel advised Defendant that: (1)

A: holding bad faith not merely negligence must be proved if insurer is to be held liable for damages over policy limits for refusing to settle
B: holding that under montana common law an insurer cannot be held liable for bad faith in denying a claim if the insurer had a reasonable basis for contesting the claim
C: holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in 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
B.