existed as to the value of his claim, and that he therefore presented sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment. Under Oklahoma law, an insurer can be held liable for bad faith “only where there is a clear showing that the insurer unreasonably, and in bad faith, withholds payment of the claim of its insured.” Christian v. American Home Assur. Co., 577 P.2d 899, 905 (Okla.1977). Moreover, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has held that “bad faith cannot exist if an insurer’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.” Barnes v. Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 11 P.3d 162, 170-171 (Okla. 2000). This duty to act reasonably extends to the manner in which an insurer investigates an insured’s claim. Buzzard v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 824 P.2d 1105, 1109 (Okla.1991) (<HOLDING>). For the following reasons we hold that
holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report holding that a claim against an insurer for vexatious refusal to pay cannot be maintained where the court finds that the insurer has no duty to defend under the policy holding that the insurer is allowed to continue its investigation beyond the time that payment is due under the policy if reasonably necessary