given that it never received the March 28, 2001 demand letter. Kelly attempts to overcome this fact by pointing to a May 30, 2001 phone conversation between a CLO attorney and a CSE representative, in which the attorney told the representative of the demand letter. But the day after the phone conversation, the representative sent the attorney a letter informing him that CSE had no record of having received the demand letter and asking him to send another copy. CLO never responded to this request. No reasonable jury could conclude that CSE acted in bad faith by failing to communicate a settlement offer that it did not have in writing and that opposing counsel refused to confirm when requested to do so. See United, Fire Ins. Co. v. McClelland, 105 Nev. 504, 780 P.2d 193, 197 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court correctly
holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured holding without discussion that compensated sureties should be treated as insurers and that all insurers owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees holding that a jury question as to an insurers bad faith arises when facts permit differing inferences as to the reasonableness of the insurers conduct