With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We recognize that the Stiekney Lawsuit and the underlying transaction posed a somewhat thorny and complicated circumstance to be resolved. Indeed, an additional layer that Fidelity rightly needed to address was whether Anastasi himself may have been complicit in the forgery or some type of attempt to fraudulently obtain title insurance proceeds. Notwithstanding the legitimate questions facing Fidelity in this ease, it cannot overly rely on the provisions in the policy allowing it to litigate. Rather, the question under Best Place is whether, given the information Fidelity had, the timing when it had the information, and when it reasonably resolved the issues presented by Anastasi’s claim, was there an unreasonable delay in paying Anastasi. See 82 Hawai'i at 133, 920 P.2d at 347 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Fidelity must meet the enhanced

A: holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
B: holding there can be no claim for bad faith when an insurer has promptly denied a claim that is in fact not covered
C: holding that an unreasonable delay in paying benefits will warrant recovery for a bad faith claim
D: holding that a bad faith claim arises out of contract for attorney fee statute
C.