With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". exists in the Policy as applied to Plaintiffs particular case: it is unclear whether the settlement with Nicholas’s insurer is sufficient to void Defendant’s subrogation interest or whether such settlement should have been made with the woman who opened her car door into Plaintiffs travel lane. Defendant contends that the defense was not asserted as a main issue during the arbitration, was not used in Defendant’s valuation of the claim, and thus should be ignored. Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 16-17. Even if the policy ambiguity were resolved in Plaintiffs favor, thus voiding Defendant’s subrogation interest, that Defendant asserted a subrogation defense is not clear and convincing evidence of bad faith. See Hyde Athletic Indus., Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 969 F.Supp. 289, 307 (E.D.Pa.1997) (<HOLDING>); cf. Williams v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 83

A: recognizing the intentional tort of bad faith in firstparty insurance actions
B: holding that improper motive is element of bad faith
C: holding that insurance companys aggressive defense of its interest is not bad faith
D: holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
C.