based on defendant’s refusal to pay cannot get beyond a summary judgment motion even if the Consumer Fraud Act applies to insurance transactions. The Consumer Fraud Act makes unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.” 9 V.S.A. § 2453(a). The requirements of a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act are set out in Peabody: “(1) there must be a representation, practice, or omission likely to mislead the consumer; (2) the consumer must be interpreting the message state Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tenn. 1998) (although Tennessee Consumer Protection Act applies to insurance transactions, mere good faith denial of a claim is not actionable under the act); Salois v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 581 P.2d 1349, 1351 (Wash. 1978) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 17. In summary, we agree with the superior
recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages holding that an implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing constitutes an agreement under 12 usc  1823e holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract holding that an insurers violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing was actionable under the consumer protection act recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract