of Utah.” Aplt. App. at 11. The assertion that Waite breached his duty of good faith and fair dealing because he was not technically authorized to be a trustee is meritless. The assertion that Waite was not a proper trustee establishes no specific breach of a duty by Waite as trustee, the very status that created the duty of good faith alleged in Brazell’s claim. The other allegation, that Waite was foreclosing on behalf of a party without authority, is also meritless. In this claim, Brazell asserts that Waite is liable for breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Brazell only makes conclusory allegations that Waite breached any duty, however, and makes no specific allegations that Waite violated the trust deed or the foreclosure statutes. See Five F, LLC, 81 P.3d at 106, 109 (<HOLDING>). Particularly here, where Brazell failed to
holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract holding that negligence alone is not sufficient to constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to insureds recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages holding that trustees fiduciary duty required it to do no more than follow requirements of trust deed and statute and that trustors claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was therefore not viable 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