In Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assn. v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 335, an insured sued his insurer for bad faith based on the insurer's decision that the covered damage to the insured's home was significantly less than the total amount claimed. The insurer conducted an immediate investigation and a further investigation at the insured's request. The court held there was no bad faith liability where the insurer reasonably relied on the conclusions of its investigators concerning the scope of covered losses and the cost of repair. (Chateau Chamberay, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 349-350.) The Court explained that "in the context of the insurance contract, it has been held that the insurer's responsibility to act fairly and in good faith with respect to the handling of the insured's claim ' "is not the requirement mandated by the terms of the policy itself - to defend, settle, or pay. It is the obligation . . . under which the insurer must act fairly and in good faith in discharging its contractual responsibilities." ' " (Chateau Chamberay, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 346.) The court further explained: " ' "The ultimate test of bad faith liability in the first party cases is whether the refusal to pay policy benefits . . . was unreasonable." ' " (Id. at p. 346.) The court also explained that this issue can be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. (Id. at p. 347.) The court noted, for example, that if an insurer denied a claim based upon the opinion of experts, there may be a genuine dispute entitling the insurer to summary adjudication of the claim for bad faith. (Ibid.) In addition, as explained in the Chateau Chamberay case, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact. The moving defendant also bears a burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there is a complete defense to the plaintiff's cause of action or that there is an absence of an essential element in the plaintiff's case. (Chateau Chamberay, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 344-345.) In Chateau Chamberay, the court concluded that the insurer made a prima facie showing of a genuine dispute and that the homeowner's association failed to raise a triable issue of material fact to show that the insurer acted in bad faith. (Id. at pp. 349-350.) In Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assn. v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co. (2001) the homeowners association alleged the insurer acted in bad faith by unreasonably delaying in making payments and failing to conduct an adequate investigation. Division Three of the Court observed: "'"The ultimate test of bad faith liability in the first party cases is whether the refusal to pay policy benefits or the alleged delay in paying was unreasonable."' While the reasonableness of an insurer's claims-handling conduct is ordinarily a question of fact, it becomes a question of law where the evidence is undisputed and only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence. . . . The reasonableness of the insurer's decisions and actions must be evaluated as of the time that they were made; the evaluation cannot fairly be made in the light of subsequent events which may provide evidence of the insurer's errors. " (Id. at pp. 346-347.) The court observed further, "It is now settled law in California that an insurer denying or delaying the payment of policy benefits due to the existence of a genuine dispute with its insured as to the existence of coverage liability or the amount of the insured's coverage claim is not liable in bad faith even though it might be liable for breach of contract. It is equally clear that this issue may be resolved as a matter of law in a proper case. '"A court can conclude as a matter of law that an insurer's denial of a claim is not unreasonable, so long as there existed a genuine issue as to the insurer's liability." '" (Chateau Chamberay, supra, at p. 347.) In Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Ass'n v. Associated Intern. Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 335, the court cited to certain examples of cases in which a biased insurance investigation claim should go to a factfinder, even where reliance on the advice and opinions is asserted by the insurer, as set forth in Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2001) 237 F.3d 987, 996: "(1) the insurer was guilty of misrepresenting the nature of the investigatory proceedings ; (2) the insurer's employees lied during the depositions or to the insured; (3) the insurer dishonestly selected its experts; (4) the insurer's experts were unreasonable; (5) the insurer failed to conduct a thorough investigation. " (Chateau Chamberay, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 348-349.)