How have courts treated "good faith" claims in the context of a claim that was asserted in good faith?

"The determinative question thus becomes whether [the lessor's] claim was asserted in good faith. Or, phrased differently in the context of this case, was there any reasonable basis, either factually or legally, for [its] counsel to believe their distinguishing of [the controlling appellate opinion] had merit.... [p] Something other than sincerity and an honest conviction by a party in his position is required before justification for his conduct on the grounds of 'good faith' can be established. There must be an objective basis for the belief which requires more than reliance on counsel. It is the opinion of counsel that must be examined, recognizing that creative and conscientious lawyers should be given every opportunity to challenge outmoded precedent to permit constructive development of the law. [Citation omitted.] However, to merely equate reliance on an attorney's advice with 'good faith' is to shield those parties from liability who seek and obtain counsel. To create such a blanket rule of immunity is unwarranted." (Richardson v. La Rancherita, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at pp. 81, 82-83, 159 Cal.Rptr. 285, fn. omitted.)