DocketNumber: No. 107889
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 6848
Judges: SULLIVAN, J.
Filed Date: 7/20/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On April 8, 1993, the defendant filed a motion to strike counts three and four of the plaintiff's revised amended complaint. On April 26, 1993, the plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant's Motion to Strike.
"[I]n ruling on a motion to strike, the court must construe the facts alleged in the complaint in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff." Rowe v. Godou,
The defendant argues that CUIPA, Connecticut General Statutes
The plaintiff argues that the defendant is precluded from bringing this motion by Practice Book 150 because he has already filed an answer to the plaintiff's original complaint. The plaintiff further argues that the defendant has violated Connecticut General Statute
The following are defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance: (1) Misrepresentations and false advertising of insurance policies. Making, issuing or circulating, or causing to be made, issued or circulated, any estimate, illustration, circular or statement, sales presentation, omission or comparison which: . . . (f) is a misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing or tending to induce to the lapse, forfeiture, exchange, conversion or surrender of any insurance policy . . .
Therefore, the plaintiff argues, she has a cause of action under CUIPA, and furthermore, that the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that a cause of action exists under CUTPA for alleged CUIPA violations. See Mead v. Burns,
Connecticut Practice Book 113 provides:
In all cases, when the court does not otherwise order, the filing of any pleading provided for by the preceding section will waive the right to file any pleading which might have been filed in due order and which precedes it in the order of pleading provided in that section.
(Emphasis added.) Based on the above, this court finds that it may hear the defendant Francis Jacovino's motion to strike.
"Unlike CUTPA, CUIPA does not expressly create a private right of action. Rather, it is a regulatory statute granting certain powers to the insurance commissioner. . . . There is no provision for a private right of action." Scheer v. Chubb Son, Inc., 9 Conn. Law Trib. No. 17, p. 13, 16 (D. Conn., December 14, CT Page 6851 1982, Burns, J.). While the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that a violation of CUIPA may be actionable as an unfair trade practice; see Mead v. Burns,
The court in Bronson Townsend Co. v. Cornaglia,
A plaintiff may bring a private cause of action under CUTPA for a violation of CUIPA. Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co.,
The plaintiff has alleged in paragraph 8 of her revised complaint that the life insurance policy recommended and sold to her by the defendant Francis Jacovino was "inappropriate to meet the goals communicated by the plaintiff and her husband to the defendant." Furthermore, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaintiff's revised complaint she alleges that the defendant induced her to withdraw money from a life insurance policy to buy two other insurance instruments from the defendant and that he (defendant) represented that there would be no taxable event from the withdrawal of this money. The plaintiff also alleges that the fact that this withdrawal resulted in a taxable event was concealed from her by Mr. Jacovino.
Viewing the allegations in a manner most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of Connecticut General Statutes
The court further finds that the plaintiff may bring a cause of action under CUTPA to enforce her alleged CUIPA violations. See Mead, supra. Therefore, the court also denies the defendant's motion to strike count four of plaintiff's revised amended complaint.
WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN, J.