Cited by

B. Counts 2 and 8: Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Tortious Bad Faith ¶30 A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every Arizona contract, meaning “neither party will act to impair the right of the other to receive the benefits which flow from their agreement or contractual relationship.”

Manterola, 200 Ariz. at 576 ¶ 9 ().

¶20 Arizona courts imply “a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract.”

But when this covenant is breached in contracts implicating certain special relationships (including between and insurer and insured), particularly those characterized by “elements of public interest, adhesion, and fiduciary responsibility,” the plaintiff may recover tort damages.

(“We have previously noted that the remedy for breach of the implied covenant of good faith is ordinarily on the contract itself.”).

Health Plans, Inc., ¶ 17 (2022) ().

(stating the implied covenant does not entitle a party “to protection in excess of that which is provided for in the contract, nor to anything inconsistent with the limitations contained in the contract”).

n.8 (1986) (“[P]unitive damages are not recoverable in every fraud case, even though fraud is an intentional tort.”).

(The insured is not entitled “to payment of claims that are excluded by the policy, nor to protection in excess of that which is provided for in the contract, nor to anything inconsistent with the limitations contained in the contract.”).

Restatement § 3(c); (“The law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract.”); Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp.

Similarly, the privity of contract must exist to recover under a bad faith claim that “arises by virtue of a contractual relationship.”

¶17 “The law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract,” which is a duty that “arises by virtue of a contractual 6 CAVALLO, ET AL. V. PHOENIX HEALTH PLANS, INC. Opinion of the Court relationship.”

To warrant an award of punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, “more than the mere commission of a tort”: that the defendant’s “evil hand was guided by an evil mind.” ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2009) (); see also Swift Transp., CV-20-0119-PR, at *5, ¶ 22.

¶11 an insurance bad faith case, held that punitive damages may be awarded only when a plaintiff can prove that the “defendant’s evil hand was guided by an evil mind.” In describing the evil hand, Rawlings stated that “[t]he ‘intent’ required .

Wells Fargo Bank, 201 Ariz. at 491, ¶ 64; (noting that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can be breached in the absence of a breach of express covenants in the contract); ¶ 15 (App. 2006) (“A party can breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing without breach

When analyzing whether a party breached the implied covenant, “the relevant inquiry always will focus on the contract itself, to determine what the parties did agree to.”

To warrant an award of punitive damages, the plaintiff must show, by clear and convincing evidence, “[s]omething more than the mere commission of a tort”: that the “tortfeasor’s ‘evil hand was guided by an evil mind.’” ¶¶ 15–16 (App. 2009) (alteration in original) ().

The Court has described the insurer’s role as “an almost adjudicatory responsibility.”

see also Scottsdale Publ'g, n.7 (App. 1988) (discussing correlation between "actual malice" required to prove defamation and "evil mind" necessary to obtain punitive damages in a tort action).

(“The law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract.”).

(“A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract .