DocketNumber: No. CV97 0156478 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3642
Judges: D'ANDREA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/25/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant has filed a motion to strike counts two and three of the complaint based on the grounds that "a CUTPA cause [of] action against an insurance company requires a violation of the predicate CUIPA statute; an alleged single act of insurer misconduct is insufficient to state a cause of action under CUIPA and CUTPA; and a private cause of action does not exist under CUIPA."
"The proper method to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint is to make a motion to strike prior to trial." Gulackv. Gulack,
Count two of the complaint sounds in a violation of CUTPA based on the defendant's alleged unfair claim settlement. "[A] CUTPA claim based on an alleged unfair claim settlement practice prohibited by §
In the present case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant "repeatedly engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade or commerce in violation of [CUTPA] in that it: a) refused to advance plaintiff moving costs although such costs are covered under the policy; b) refused to pay plaintiff's claim for costs associated with the transfer of its telephone system, although such costs are covered under the policy; [and] c) misrepresented that the president of the plaintiff company participated in theft of the equipment and securities."
The plaintiff's allegations do not amount to allegations of conduct occurring "with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice." Rather, the plaintiff has enumerated the alleged reasons that the defendant rejected its claim or claims involving only one particular loss. The second count of the plaintiff's complaint, therefore, is legally insufficient. The defendant's motion to strike count two of the complaint is granted.
Count three of the complaint sounds in a violation of CUIPA. "[T]he legislature has manifested a clear intent to exempt from coverage under CUIPA isolated instances of insurer misconduct."Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co., supra,
In the present case, the plaintiff, in its complaint, attempts to circumvent the Lees requirement by simply listing eight other entities that allegedly have filed complaints against the defendant with the Connecticut Insurance Department. However, the plaintiff fails to establish what facts, if any, support those entities' complaints. The only misconduct pleaded, therefore, is the "isolated instance" which occurred against the plaintiff. The third count of the plaintiff's complaint is legally insufficient. The defendant's motion to strike count three of the complaint, therefore, is granted.
So Ordered.
D'ANDREA, J.