DocketNumber: No. CV 94-0361910
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5370-D
Judges: ZOARSKI, STATE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 9/19/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff alleges the following facts. On October 5, 1987, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a Sales Agreement which appointed the defendant as its agent to sell annuity, health and life insurance policies to the public. This CT Page 5370-E action arises out of the dishonesty of one of the defendant's employees, Michael P. Donnelly, who was employed as an insurance salesman from July 26, 1991 and August 24, 1992.1 In 1992, Donnelly allegedly sold annuity policies to five customers and fraudulently retained premium payments in the amount of $126,300, instead of transferring them to the plaintiff.2 Upon complaint by the purchasers, the plaintiff later made restitution. The plaintiff maintains that the defendant is liable to it for losses and expenses related to Donnelly's actions as well as for punitive damages.
On October 11, 1994, the defendant filed a motion to strike count four of the amended count. On November 7, 1994, the court, Martin, J., granted the motion to strike on the ground that insufficient facts were alleged to state a cause of action based on reckless and wanton conduct.
Based upon new information learned through discovery and admissions, on January 23, 1996, the plaintiff requested leave to file a new count four to replace the count four which had been previously stricken. Count four now alleges recklessness based on the defendant's failure to conduct a pre-employment check on Donnelly, to verify his license to sell insurance in Connecticut and to supervise him properly to prevent employee misconduct. The complaint also alleges that within two weeks of Donnelly's employment with the defendant, Donnelly paid a fine and signed a complaint, stipulation and order on August 6, 1991 with the Connecticut Insurance Department arising from misconduct at his prior place of employment.3 The plaintiff further alleges that after the defendant became aware of the stipulation on December 9, 1991, the defendant failed to verify the status of Donnelly's license to sell annuity products and to supervise him properly. The defendant employed Donnelly until August 1992.
On May 1, 1996, the defendant filed a motion to strike count four of the plaintiff's amended complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim for reckless or wanton conduct. The defendant also filed a memorandum of law in support of his motion to strike as required by Practice Book § 155.
On May 29, 1996, the plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant's motion to strike supported by a memorandum of law. CT Page 5370-F
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest the legal sufficiency of the allegation of any complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC, Group, Inc.,
In support of the motion to strike, the defendant argues that the plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim for reckless or wanton conduct because the plaintiff has failed to plead that the defendant acted or failed to act with the intent to injure or cause harm to the plaintiff. The defendant relies on Dubay v. Irish,
In opposition to the defendant's motion to strike, the plaintiff counters that a claim of recklessness does not require an explicit allegation of intent because not all reckless acts are intentional. It relies on Collens v. New Canaan Water Co.,
"There is a wide difference between negligence and reckless or wanton misconduct." Brock v. Waldron,
In the present case, count four now alleges that the CT Page 5370-G defendant hired Donnelly to sell insurance products to the public without conducting a pre-employment background check. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant permitted Donnelly to sell annuity products even after learning on December 9, 1991 that Donnelly did not have a valid license to sell the products and that Donnelly had paid a fine and signed a stipulated complaint with the Connecticut Insurance Department on August 6, 1991. In the defendant's response to the plaintiff's request for admissions dated May 25, 1995, the defendant admits that Donnelly was not licensed to sell ITT Hartford annuities in 1992. Therefore, the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action based on reckless and wanton misconduct.
"The mere use of the words `reckless' and `wanton' is insufficient to raise an actionable claim of reckless and wanton misconduct. . . . To be legally sufficient, a count based on reckless and wanton misconduct must, like an action in negligence, allege some duty running from the defendant to the plaintiff." (Citations omitted.) Sheiman v. Lafayette Bank Trust Co., supra,
Therefore, the defendant's motion to strike the new count four of the plaintiff's first amended complaint is denied because the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts upon which to state a claim based on reckless and wanton misconduct.
Howard F. Zoarski State Trial Referee