to the correction. Because we hold that this issue was properly preserved, we need not remand this case to the trial court for clarification of the record. See Blecker v. Kofoed, 672 P.2d 526, 528 n. 4 (Colo.1983) (stating: "Our disposition of this case makes it unnecessary to consider the appropriateness of a remand for clarification"). 10 . Arguments not raised before the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal. In re Estate of Stevenson v. Hollywood Bar & Cafe, Inc., 832 P.2d 718, 721 n. 5 (Colo.1992). 11 . We find Allen's arguments to the contrary unpersuasive. Although we agree that consent clauses in insurance contracts are to be liberally construed to provide coverage. See Wiglesworth v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 917 P.2d 288 65, 382, 541 N.W.2d 753, 758-59 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Palomar Ins. Corp. v. Guthrie, 583 So.2d 1304
holding that breach of good faith and fair dealing claim requires showing of breach of contract holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty holding when an insurers alleged breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing toward its insured involves facts and circumstances within the common knowledge or ordinary experience of an average juror an insured need not introduce expert testimony to establish a bad faith claim holding that an insurers violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing was actionable under the consumer protection act