DocketNumber: No. CV91 284777S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2243
Judges: LEWIS, J.
Filed Date: 3/11/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The defendant has filed a motion (#107) to strike the second and fourth counts of plaintiff's complaint. Practice Book 152.
The second count alleges that by reason of its refusal to pay her claim, the defendant inflicted severe emotional distress upon the plaintiff. The fourth count claims a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes 38(a)-815 et seq.
A prior motion to strike, dated October 25, 1991, referred CT Page 2244 only to the fourth count and claimed that it did not set forth a cognizable cause of action under CUIPA.
Thereafter, the plaintiff amended its complaint to add in the fourth count a new paragraph eleven which alleged that the defendant "has engaged in practices such as those alleged above as a part of its general business practice of handling the claims of the plaintiff and of those similarly situated to her." The defendant's second motion to strike not only again challenges count four, but also seeks to strike count two as well.
The plaintiff argues that the defendant cannot move to strike count two of the revised complaint at this point because the defendant failed to move to strike that count in its earlier motion to strike.
Practice Book 112 sets forth the order of pleading, and 113 states that filing a later pleading waives the right to file an earlier pleading. However, 113 limits its applicability to cases "when the court does not otherwise order." "[T]he court has discretion to allow the filing of pleadings out of order." Sabine v. Ruffolo,
I believe that the defendant should be allowed to move to strike count two at this time, even though it could have done so earlier.
With respect to the merits of the motion to strike count two, plaintiff alleges that defendant's refusal to pay her claim inflicted "severe emotional distress" upon her and exacerbated her "psychiatric and psychological condition." DeLaurentis v. New Haven,
Thus, under both theories of emotional distress, the plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action or claim.
To state a claim under CUIPA for unfair claim settlement practice, a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, facts that "show . . . more than a single act of insurance misconduct." Meade v. Burns,
Hence, the motion to strike counts two and four of the complaint is granted.
So Ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 11th day of March, 1992.
WILLIAM B. LEWIS, JUDGE