would not have drawn the release so narrowly — confining it to “contractual” and “subsequent” matters, with no mention of tort claims or bad faith. Surely, State Farm knew what language would effectively release it from Taylor’s potential bad faith claim. It can be inferred that sophisticated parties in the business of settling insurance claims, faced with the task of releasing a claim as large as Taylor’s, would have used more specific or at least broader language if that was their agreement. This is especially true in light of the conspicuous nature of the claim, the parties’ obvious knowledge of its existence, and the very recent supreme court authority characterizing the claim as a tort. Compare Edwards v. Comstock Ins. Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 1164, 252 Cal.Rptr. 807, 808, 810 (1988) (<HOLDING>) with Asare v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1
holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding that a state law tort of bad faith was necessarily based on breach of duties contained in the cba and was therefore preempted holding that a bad faith claim arises out of contract for attorney fee statute holding that broad language releasing all claims whether in contract tort or otherwise necessarily included a bad faith claim holding that whether in tort or contract all malpractice claims are covered by the same statute of limitations