Cited by

Such conduct is to involve “some element of outrage similar to that usually found in crime.”

157, , 573 (1986) (insurer "should not be held liable because of a good faith mistake in performance or judgment").

“The essence of that duty is that neither party will act to impair the right of the other to receive the benefits which flow from their agreement or contractual relationship.”

Co., -38, ¶ 20 (2000) ().

(holding that, “to obtain punitive damages, [a] plaintiff must prove that [a] defendant’s evil hand was guided by an evil mind”).

¶14 Punitive damages may be available where the plaintiff establishes that the defendant’s “wrongful conduct was guided by evil motives.”

Co. of Wis., ¶ 17 (App. 2016) (-63 (1986)).

(stating that plaintiff must show the "evil hand ...

¶12 “[P]unitive damages may not be awarded in a bad faith tort case unless the evidence reflects ‘something more’ than the conduct necessary to establish the tort.” (citations omitted).

And in Rawlings v. Apodaca, the court “recognize[d] that in buying insurance an insured usually does not seek to realize a commercial advantage but, instead, seeks protection and security from economic catastrophe.”

(quoting Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 2, at 9-10 (5th ed. 1984)).

¶50 Tort damages for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are available only when there exists a “special relationship” between the parties, which is characterized by “‘elements of public interest, adhesion, and fiduciary responsibility.’” (quoting Seaman’s Direct Buying Serv., (Cal.

vacated in part on other grounds

(bad faith claimant [‘]may recover all the losses caused by [the] defendant’s conduct, including damages for pain, humiliation and inconvenience, as well as for pecuniary losses [‘])”).

¶29 “The law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract.” 8 WILSON v. PNC Decision of the Court (1986).

at 331, 723 P.2d at 680 ( ); (recognizing that 21 DESERT PALM et al. v. PETTA Opinion of the Court recklessness or even gross negligence is insuff

(“The essence of [the covenant of good faith and fair dealing] is that neither party will act to impair the right of the other to receive the benefits which flow from their agreement or contractual relationship.”).

–55, 160, –71, 576 (1986); Acosta, 214 Ariz. at 383 ¶ 13, 153 P.3d at 404; see also Windt Treatise § 9.15.

See Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co., Inc., -63, -79 (1986); Linthicum v. Nationwide Ins.

¶25 In every contract, there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which requires the contracting parties to refrain from acting “to impair the right of the other to receive the benefits which flow from their agreement or contractual relationship.” (citations omitted).