DocketNumber: No. CV95 0145179
Judges: KARAZIN, J.
Filed Date: 1/9/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
State Farm filed a motion to strike the third, fourth and fifth counts for improper joinder on June 16, 1995. The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to strike on October 25, 1995. CT Page 105
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to ``contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff." Novametrix Medical Systems. Inc. v.BOC Group. Inc.,
State Farm argues that the tort causes of action against Eleftheriou and the contract and statutory actions against State Farm "constitute separate causes of action . . . since each allege a separate and distinct group of facts resulting in separate and distinct claims of injury." (Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Strike.) Furthermore, the jury will become confused by a trial on both claims, and State Farm will be prejudiced because it will be seen as the "deep pocket."
The plaintiff argues that its claims arise from a single transaction, the automobile accident, and are therefore properly joined.
Practice Book § 133 states "[i]n any civil action the plaintiff may include in his complaint both legal and equitable rights and causes of action, and demand both legal and equitable remedies; but, if several causes of action are united in the same complaint, they shall all be brought to recover, either . . . (7) upon claims, whether in contract or tort or both, arising out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action." See General Statutes §
"The purpose of joinder is to ``enable parties to settle all their controversies in a single action.'" Hutchings v. Hutchings,
CT Page 106 Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, Docket No. 054449 (February 22, 1993) (Dranginis, J.
The last three counts incorporate paragraphs
The claims do not arise from the same transaction. The first two claims arise from liability for the automobile accident and the injuries received, and the last three from the contract of insurance, whether the plaintiff continues to be injured, and State Farm's refusal to continue payment. The issues revolve around different subject matters. While they may be related, the essential transactions, the accident versus State Farm's decision to discontinue coverage, are separate.
Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted.