Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): certain provisions are met. Fla. Stat. § 624.155 (1999). Before the adoption of section 624.155, Florida courts refused to recognize a cause of action by an insured against his insurer alleging the insurer, in bad faith, refused to settle his claim; i.e., a “first party” bad faith cause of action. Opperman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 515 So.2d 263, 265-67 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987). While “first party” bad faith claims were not permitted, if an insured could allege an independent tort, such as fraud or intentional infliction of emotional distress, he could proceed against the insurer on those claims and receive punitive damages. Greene v. Well Care HMO, Inc., 778 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001); see also Griffith v. Shamrock Village, Inc., 94 So.2d 854, 858 (Fla.1957) (<HOLDING>). GEICO essentially argued during its motion 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that while punitive damages are normally not recoverable for breach of contract where acts constituting a breach of contract also amount to a cause of action in tort there may be recovery of exemplary damages  however the breach must be attended by some intentional wrong insult abuse or gross negligence which amounts to an independent tort (B) holding that there must be a tort distinguishable from or independent of the breach of contract in order for a party to bring a valid claim in tort based on a breach in a contractual relationship (C) holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract (D) holding that the failure to act in good faith  does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract (E) holding that absent an independent tort a plaintiff alleging a breach of contract may only seek to recover the damages flowing from the breach
Output (English): holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract