Hat

MEMORANDUM *

In her bad faith action, Amanda Hat claimed that her insurer, Depositors Insurance Company (“Depositors”), breached its contractual obligation to act in good faith as it resolved her uninsured motorist claim. Depositors moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion, finding no bad faith because a genuine dispute existed as to the amount owed and any delays were due to Hat’s ongoing treatment for her injuries. 1 Hat appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

“An insurer denying or delaying the payment of policy benefits due to the existence of a genuine dispute with the insured ... as to the amount of the insured’s coverage claim is not liable in bad faith.” Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Ass’n v. Assoc. Int’l Ins. Co., 90 Cal.App.4th 335 , 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 776, 784 (Ct.App.2001). *765 However, as the word “genuine” implies, the insurer’s position must be “maintained in good faith and on reasonable grounds.” Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co., 42 Cal.4th 713 , 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 171 P.3d 1082, 1089 (2007). An insurer is not entitled to summary judgment where a jury could reasonably conclude that the insurer acted unreasonably. See…