DocketNumber: No. CV 97 63296
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3722
Judges: SULLIVAN, J.
Filed Date: 3/24/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant alleges that the first count of the complaint is legally insufficient as it fails to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate the intent necessary to state a claim for willfully failing to pay benefits.
Wilfulness is a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will. Buckman v. People Express, Inc.,
The existence or non-existence of a particular state of mind is a fact. "The state of mind amounting to recklessness may be inferred from conduct." Dubay v. Irish, supra, p. 538. However, it obviously may be proven by other means, such as through the at trial testimony of the actor(s), here the agents, servants and employees of the defendant or through any inferences which may be properly drawn from such testimony.
Proof of a fact is accomplished by evidence. "Each pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts in which the pleader relies, but not of the evidence by which they are to be proven . . ." Practice Book § 108.
The plaintiff has properly pleaded the operative fact of wilful. The motion to strike the first count is denied.
The third count of the complaint alleges a violation of CUTPA, General Statutes §
In most instances involving insurance claims it is required that the plaintiff allege, and prove, that unfair settlement practices were committed or performed "with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice." See General Statutes § 38a 816(6) — Unfair claim settlement practices. See alsoLees v. Middlesex Ins. Co.,
The plaintiff, however, points out that the insurance policy upon which this claim is based is an "accident and health" policy, as alleged in the first count of the complaint, and incorporated into this third count. The plaintiff attached a copy of the policy to the complaint. The disability benefits sought are under the policy provision providing for disability "due to disease or injury". It appears clear that the policy in question would be an "accident and health" policy.
The Lees case, supra, deals with claims under General Statutes §
Finally, a violation of CUIPA may also form the basis for a violation of CUTPA. See Mead v. Burns,
The motion to strike the third count of the complaint is denied.
L. Paul Sullivan, J.