California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc., 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 272 Cal.Rptr. 387 (Cal. App. 1990):
Although plaintiffs have characterized this count as the tortious breach of the implied covenant, it is obviously possible to state a cause of action for a breach of such covenant even though no basis for a tort recovery exists. Thus, we must consider if a cause of action has been stated on any theory, irrespective of the label attached by the pleader. (Zumbrun v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 8-9, 101 Cal.Rptr. 499.) After a review of the applicable law, 14 we will conclude that plaintiffs' allegations are not sufficient to state any cause of action for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith, irrespective of the remedy sought. First, plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to justify a recovery in tort. Secondly, they have not even attempted to plead a basis for a recovery of anything other than ordinary contract damages and their claim is simply duplicative of their two contract causes of action and thus may be disregarded.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.