While there is no universally-accepted test for establishing a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, “two elements appear to recur with some frequency: (1) the defendant acts in bad faith or with a malicious motive, (2) to deny the plaintiff some benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties, even if that benefit was not an express provision of the contract.” Yapak, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins., Civ. A. No. 3:09-3370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009) (citing Brunswick Hills Racquet Club, Inc. v. Route 18 Shopping Ctr. Assocs., 864 A.2d 387 (N.J. 2005)). In addition, “in the absence of a contract, there can be no breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”

(citation omitted). To succeed on a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a party must prove that “(1) the [opposing party acted] in bad faith or with a malicious motive, (2) to deny the [party] some benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties, even if that benefit was not an express provision of the contract.” Yapak, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 093370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009).

. Co., Civ. No. 09-3370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009) (citing Brunswick Hills Racquet Club, Inc. v. Route 18 Shopping Ctr, Assocs., 182 N.J. 210, 225 (2005)).

While “[t]here is no universally accepted test for establishing a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing” typically two elements appear: “(1) the defendant acts in bad faith or with a malicious motive to (2) deny the plaintiff some benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties, even if that benefit was not an express provision of the contract.” Yapak, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 09-3370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009) (citing Brunswick Hills Racquet Club, Inc. v. Route 18 Shopping Ctr. Assocs., 182 N.J. 210, 225 (2005)).

To succeed on a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a party must prove that “(1) the [opposing party acted] in bad faith or with a malicious motive, (2) to deny the [party] some benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties, even if that benefit was not an express provision of the contract.” Yapak, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 09-3370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009).

(2) to deny the plaintiff some benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties, even if that benefit was not an express provision of the contract.”Yapak, LLC V. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., Civ. No. 09-3370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009) (citing Brunswick Hills Racquet Club, Inc. v. Route 18 Shopping Cir. Assocs., 182 N.J. 210, 225 (2005)). Here, Defendants' termination of Soltis's employment certainly denied him the benefit of any of the “oral agreenient[s]” he alleges to have bargained for with Schmidt and/or Catalent regarding his ability to work for the company.

To survive motion to dismiss, “a mere recital of the elements themselves will not suffice. Yapak, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 09-3370, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96361, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009). “Under New Jersey law, a complaint alleging breach of contract must, at a minimum,

Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 922 A.2d 710, 722 (N.J. 2007) (internal citations omitted). To succeed on a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a party must prove that “(1) the [opposing party acted] in bad faith or with a malicious motive, (2) to deny the [party] some benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties, even if that benefit was not an express provision of the contract.” Yapak, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 09-3370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009).

” Raritan Bay Fed. Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc'y, No. 09-1512, 2009 WL 2223049, at *3 (D.N.J. July 23, 2009); see also Yapak, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 09-3370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009).

. Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc'y, Inc., No. 09-1512, 2009 WL 2223049, at *3 (D.N.J. July 23, 2009) (quoting Pickett v. Lloyd's, 131 N.J. 457, 473 (1993)). Allegations that the carrier denied coverage, standing alone, are insufficient to plead bad faith and survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at *3-4; see also Yapak, LLC v. Mass. Bay Ins. Co., No. 09-3370, 2009 WL 3366464, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 16, 2009) (holding that allegations which “simply amount to the proposition that Plaintiff made an insurance claim that was denied” do not “support an inference that Plaintiff's claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a plausible one”).