to insureds. The statute in pertinent part provides: Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, an insured under any insurance policy as set out in the general laws or otherwise may bring an action against the insurer issuing the policy when it is alleged the insurer wrongfully and in bad faith refused to pay or settle a claim made pursuant to the provisions of the policy, or otherwise wrongfully and in bad faith refused to timely perform its obligations under the contract of insurance. § 9-1-33(a) (emphasis added). Although the Rhode Island Supreme Court has not addressed this question directly, it has balked at attempts to broaden § 9-1-33(a)’s cause of action beyond what the statute explicitly provides. See, e.g., Richard v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 604 A.2d 1260, 1262 (R.I.1992) (<HOLDING>); LeFranc v. Amica Mut Ins. Co., 594 A.2d 382,
holding individual defendants are not an employer within meaning of title vii holding that healthcare provider was not an insurer within the meaning of  9133 holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that health insurer contracted with fehba was not acting under a federal agency within the meaning of the federal officer removal statute holding that a consent to search is not an interrogation within the meaning of miranda 