Our neighbor state to the north answered the insurance law question: "Even though the insurer here had a 'fairly debatable' reason for not paying the claim in the first place, i.e., its belief that the loss was the result of arson, it cannot properly go beyond a reasonable denial of the claim and engage in unreasonable or unfair behavior to gain an unfair advantage. A 'fairly debatable' reason to deny a claim is not a defense against torts that may flow from engaging in oppressive and intimidating claim practices." Hatch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 842 P.2d 1089, 1099 (Wyo. 1992).