at this time, we are not addressing the issue of witness immunity. We are simply addressing whether a trial judge, who correctly identified the current state of law in West Virginia, abused his discretion by sanctioning a litigant and her attorney for expounding a novel cause of action that is not currently recognized in West Virginia. Among jurisdictions that have addressed the issue of expert witness malpractice, there is a plurality of opinions. Therefore, the appellants cannot be found to have made their claim in bad faith because bad faith requires “the assertion of a claim or defense that cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the application, extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” See Newcome v. Turner, 179 W.Va. 309, 367 S.E.2d 778 (1988) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). III. We therefore find that the trial court
holding that the plaintiffs could not be accused of bad faith when asserting a claim in an unsettled area of west virginia law holding there can be no claim for bad faith when an insurer has promptly denied a claim that is in fact not covered holding insurer was not acting in bad faith in denying underinsured motorist benefits where denial was based on an issue of law unsettled in iowa and on which other jurisdictions disagreed holding that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process when evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution holding that a bad faith claim is a tort