involved a third party insurance claim, the language of that decision does not distinguish between first and third party insurance, see generally id.; see also Kakule v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 06- 4995, 2007 WL 1810667, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44942 (E.D.Pa. June 20, 2007), and its holding has since been applied to first party insurance claims and specifically to claims for UIM benefits that do not involve claims by third parties, see Fitzpatrick, 2010 WL 2103954, at *1, *2-4, *4-5, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51348, at *1, *6-10, *13 (permitting bad faith breach of contract claim following tender of policy proceeds to insured where claim was premised on insurer’s handling of insured’s claim for UIM benefits and did not involve claims by a third party); Zaloga, 671 F.Supp.2d 623, 632 (<HOLDING>); Amitia, 2009 WL 111578, at *2-3, 2009 U.S.
holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages recognizing an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by all parties in the performance of a contract for the sale of real estate recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract holding that a duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in insurance contracts in pennsylvania and allows for the award of compensatory damages pursuant to a breach of contract claim in a first party insurance case explaining that the difference between first and third party claims does not matter to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing