With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this court should remand for a new trial on damages only. We agree that damages, if any, arising from Ms. Wilson’s bad faith claim should have been considered by the jury as a part of damages incurred by St. Paul as a result of Mr. Martin’s and Club Services’ negligence. The district court relied primarily on two cases establishing that, in Oklahoma, agents like Mr. Martin and Club Services cannot be hable for breach of the covenant of fair dealing. See Hays v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 583, 590 (10th Cir.1997) (“Under Oklahoma law, the alleged knowledge and acts of the agent at the time of the application [are] not imputed to the principal for purposes of determining whether the principal acted in bad faith.”); Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 653 P.2d 907, 912 (Okla.1982) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the district court that Mr.

A: holding that assumption of defense cannot be basis for claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing where contract had been rescinded
B: holding that a duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in insurance contracts in pennsylvania and allows for the award of compensatory damages pursuant to a breach of contract claim in a first party insurance case explaining that the difference between first and third party claims does not matter to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
C: holding that an agent as a stranger to an insurance contract cannot be held to breach an implied covenant of fair dealing
D: recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages
C.