In Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. v. North Shore Towers Management, Inc., 162 Misc.2d 778 (Civ. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1994) plaintiff insurer submitted evidence that the claims were covered by the insurance policy at issue; that the policy entitled the insurer to settle claims on the insureds' behalf that the policy provided for specified deductibles; that the plaintiff insurer paid out the amounts at issue; and that the insurer demanded repayment of the deductibles from the defendant insureds. In North Shore Towers the defendants pointed out that all of the claims were paid after the insurance policy expired and was not renewed. They argued that plaintiff, having lost the defendants' business, failed to exercise good faith in settling the claims. The court in North Shore Towers observed that "cases involving settlements within a deductible ... present a potential conflict between the insured's interest in paying as small a part of the deductible as possible, and the insurer's interest in limiting its own exposure to liability by ensuring a settlement within the deductible, or in avoiding the litigation expenses [of obtaining] dismissal of a claim which may readily be settled within the deductible." (162 Misc.2d at 780.) After a thorough, cogent, and persuasive review of the law, the court in North Shore Towers thus determined that a bad faith claim can be raised on the ground that the insurer has permitted its own interests to prevail. The court in North Shore Towers further held, inter alia, (162 Misc.2d at 781-783): In order to prevail on a bad faith claim, the insured must meet a demanding standard on which it has the burden of proof. The inquiry must be limited to whether the insurer had an "arguably prudent" basis for its assessment of the insured's liability and for its position on settlement. The court in North Shore Towers determined that the defendants there had failed to meet the burden which they bore to raise triable issues of fact as to bad faith, in that they had "not submitted an affidavit on personal knowledge setting forth any investigations defendants made on their own of the claims at issue, and defendants' reasons, based on those investigations, for disputing their liability or the amount of damages paid to the claimants. Nor have defendants shown that they made any requests to plaintiff, prior to settlement of the claims, for information about plaintiffs investigation of the claims or the progress of settlement negotiations, or that plaintiff failed to respond to such request." (162 Misc.2d at 785.) The court in North Shore Towers further determined that on that record there was not even circumstantial support for a claim of bad faith, as "there is no appearance that the insurer engaged in a pattern of settling the claims for the amount of the deductible." (162 Misc.2d at 783) (observing that of the three claims at issue there, one was settled for a little more than half of the deductible amount, one for substantially more, and only one for the precise deductible amount). The court in North Shore Towers premised its denial on CPLR Rule 3212(f), which entitles a court to deny summary judgment even in the absence of a triable issue of fact if it appears "from affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion that facts essential to justify opposition may exist." The Court in North Shore Towers held, (162 Misc.2d at 787): The papers do make a showing that plaintiff has not responded in a forthright or informative manner to requests made by defendants for specific information about the settlements. It is undisputed that prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiffs agent responded to an inquiry by defendants about the bases for the settlements ... in wholly conclusory fashion... This lawsuit followed. Approximately one month after the complaint was served, defendants served a notice to take plaintiffs deposition. The deposition was adjourned (for reasons which do not appear on record), and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was made returnable barely two months after the original date for which the deposition had been noticed. Timely service of a discovery request is by itself insufficient to mandate denial of summary judgment, but is a factor which may be taken into account in determining whether discovery should be permitted. While mindful that this litigation should not be prolonged based on a mere assertion of wrongdoing on plaintiffs part, this Court is disturbed by the fact that defendants' efforts to obtain meaningful information about bases for settlements have been avoided by plaintiff both before and after commencement of the action.