DocketNumber: No. CV99 0424248
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 16334
Judges: ZOARSKI, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 12/17/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Basilica hired the plaintiff, PA Inc., a licensed public adjuster, to assist in the settlement of its fire loss. The plaintiff alleges that Basilica assigned 10 percent of the proceeds from the adjusted insurance settlement to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleges that Lloyds was given notice of the assignment and was aware that the plaintiff had a 10 percent interest in any insurance proceeds paid to Basilica. Subsequently, Lloyds issued a negotiable draft to Basilica in settlement of the fire loss without including the plaintiff as a payee on the negotiable draft. The plaintiff alleges in counts two and three that Lloyds intentionally and negligently failed to name the plaintiff as a payee on the negotiable draft issued to Basilica in settlement of the fire loss claim of March 17, 1997.
On August 27, 1999, Lloyds filed a motion to strike counts two and three of the plaintiffs substitute complaint on the ground that the plaintiff alleged insufficient facts to establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. CT Page 16335 Additionally, Lloyds moved to strike the second count on the ground that the plaintiff alleged insufficient facts to establish a reckless misconduct claim. As required by Practice Book §
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Waters v.Autuori,
Lloyds moves to strike counts two and three on the ground that the "[p]laintiff has alleged insufficient facts to establish that Lloyds owed Plaintiff a duty of care." "The general rule is that notice to the debtor of an assignment is necessary in order to charge the debtor with duty of payment to an assignee. . . ."Equity Bank v. Gonsalves,
The plaintiff alleges in its second and third count of the substitute complaint that Basilica assigned 10 percent of the insurance proceeds from the March 17, 1997 fire loss to the plaintiff and that Lloyd's received notice of the assignment. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff. The defendant's motion to strike counts two and three of the substitute complaint on the ground that Lloyds' knowledge of the assignment created a duty of payment by Lloyds to the plaintiff is denied. CT Page 16336
Lloyds also moves to strike count two on the ground that the "Plaintiff failed to allege any facts indicating that Lloyds knew or should have known that the injury claimed by Plaintiff was likely to result from Lloyds' failure to name Plaintiff as a payee on the check, an essential element of a claim for reckless misconduct."
"In order to establish that the defendants' conduct was . . . reckless . . . the plaintiff must prove, on the part of the defendants, the existence of a state of consciousness with reference to the consequences of one's acts. . . . [I]n order to infer it, there must be something more than a failure to exercise a reasonable degree of watchfulness to avoid danger to others or to take reasonable precautions to avoid injury to them. . . . It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of the action. . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Elliot v.Waterbury,
Howard F. Zoarski Judge Trial Referee