Defendant Balboa Insurance Company’s general and special demurrers are overruled. The two breach of contract claims are sufficiently alleged. Plaintiff is representing herself pro per, and her pleading is certainly not perfect; however, the breach of contract claims are clear enough both as to the element of breach and damages. Plaintiff contends that she had a valid automobile insurance policy with Balboa that she had prepaid through August 2012. That policy is set forth verbatim in the pleading. That policy had an uninsured motorist provision (100/300), which Plaintiff contends Defendant breached by never settling her bodily injury claims under that provision. Plaintiff alleges that she provided Defendant all the documentation it needed with respect to her medical injuries (herniated disc, miscarriage and stroke), yet no reasonable settlement offer was extended to her under her policy. Rather, Defendant unreasonably “drew out” the settlement process by “creative” delays and “low ball” offers until Plaintiff was forced to bring this action or lose her right to recover under the policy. Defendant has also failed to arbitrate and return money owed to Plaintiff for a vehicle that Plaintiff no longer owns and is no longer on the policy, among other breaches. These allegations are accepted as true at this stage of the litigation.

Defendant’s general and special demurrers to the third, fourth and fifth causes of action for insurance bad faith are overruled. The gravamen of a first party lawsuit for bad faith is a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing, without proper cause, to compensate the insured for a loss covered by the policy. . . or by unreasonably delaying payments due under the policy.” See Waters v. United Services Automobile Association (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1069-1070. Plaintiff has pled both. The TAC alleges (1) Defendant’s failure to timely settle the collision portion of her claim (TAC, paragraphs 63, 64); (2) Defendant’s failure to timely settle (or ever settle) Plaintiff’s claims for medical injuries from the accident, despite providing Defendant a medical authorization release form and the documents proving her injuries from the collision (TAC, paragraphs 65-72, 74-77); (3) Defendant’s unreasonable delay in settling her claims for her medical injuries (TAC, paragraphs 65-72, 74-77), and (4) Defendant’s “deliberately” low-balling the amount offered to Plaintiff for her medical injuries, when the documentation shows that her injuries were far greater than $50,000 (TAC, paragraph 76-77).

Defendant’s general and special demurrer to the sixth cause of action for declaratory relief is overruled. An actual, present controversy exists with respect to the rights and duties of the parties under the policy. See CCP Section 1060; BKHN, Inc. v. Department of Health Services (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 301, 308.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Exhibits A and B is granted. See Evid. Code Section 452(d) Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit 1 is denied. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Exhibits 2 and 3 is granted. See Evid. Code Section 452(d)