claims by delaying its response and refusing to defend. Federal argues that R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-33(a), the authority Plaintiffs invoke in the complaint, only authorizes claims against the insurer that actually issued the policy in question, in this case, FFG. Plaintiffs respond by pointing out that the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 27-9.1-2(3), includes administrators in its definition of insurers. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that they may still proceed against Federal under the common law tort of bad faith. A plain reading of § 9-l-33(a), entitled “Insurer’s bad faith refusal to pay a claim made under any insurance policy,” reveals that this statutory cause of action is restricted to insurers that actually issue the pol 5 (R.I.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Cianci v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 659
holding that admonishment for breach of insurers obligation to insured is not applicable to equitable share dispute between insurers holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss 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 holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees