is no evidence to support plaintiffs position that defendant acted in bad faith in hiring the persons who evaluated plaintiffs alleged damages, in relying upon their report, and in claiming that a policy exclusion applied to the circumstances that created plaintiffs alleged damages. In those states that recognize Consumer Fraud Act applicability to insurance transactions, a mere coverage dispute is insufficient to show consumer fraud. See Barr Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 583 F. Supp. 248, 257-58 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (Consumer Fraud Act count that alleged defendant had a practice of not paying valid claims promptly and completely could go forward because it was not “merely a contract action at heart”); Showpiece Homes Corp. v. Assurance Co. of America, 38 P.3d 47, 59 (Colo. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 529
holding that a bad faith claim is a tort holding insurer not liable for bad faith when it denied insureds claim based on a good faith dispute regarding the interpretation of a rule holding that bad faith handling of an insureds claim fell within the act holding  616d030 barred employees action where employee alleged the insurance carrier acted in bad faith in handling the claim holding that an administrator that has control over and makes the ultimate determination regarding the merits of an insureds claim must act in good faith in processing the insureds claims