its defense costs expended on Ribi’s behalf for those claims that the District Court ultimately determined were barred by the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion. ¶6 4. Whether the District Court erred in ordering Travelers to pay attorneys’ fees that Ribi incurred in litigating pre-trial discovery motions. ¶7 Ribi also appeals the District Court’s dismissal of its contract-based claims against Travelers, including breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. We need not reach these issues, however, as our decision to affirm the District Court’s conclusions denying coverage for Ribi’s environmental contamination makes review of these matters unnecessary. See Story v. City of Bozeman (1990), 242 Mont. 436, 791 P.2d 767 (<HOLDING>); see also § 33-18-242(5), MCA (an insurer may
holding that breach of good faith and fair dealing claim requires showing of breach of contract holding that erisa  514a preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages