DocketNumber: No. CV01-034 18 37 S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6812
Judges: HOLDEN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/24/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The complaint alleges the following. The plaintiff applied to the defendants for the purposes of procuring a medical insurance policy. In consideration of the plaintiff's promise to pay the required premiums, the defendants orally agreed to issue a medical insurance policy to the plaintiff, with such coverage beginning on the date of that agreement. Although the plaintiff has been, and still is, willing to pay the defendants the premium required for the policy, the defendants have failed to issue the policy.1 After suffering subsequent medical expenses, the plaintiff submitted a claim to the defendants for payment. The defendants, because they had not issued any insurance policy to her, denied her coverage for her claim. CT Page 6813
The defendants now move to strike the fourth count of the complaint, which sets forth a violation of CUTPA, on the grounds that the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action. Specifically, the defendants argue the CUTPA claim is legally insufficient because the complaint does not allege a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes §
"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. . . . A motion to strike admits all facts well pleaded; it does not admit legal conclusions or the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings. . . . [W]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation] need not be expressly alleged." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) D'Amico v. Johnson,
"A complaint of unfair conduct with regard to providing defense and coverage of an insurance claim is actionable under CUIPA only if a plaintiff alleges and proves that the defendant's conduct constituted a general business practice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)Kupersmith v. Executive Risk Specialty Ins. Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Complex Litigation Docket, Docket No. X01 CV 00 0160077 (January 26, 2001, Hodgson, J.). The Supreme Court has stated that "a CUTPA claim based on an alleged unfair claim settlement practice prohibited by §
The plaintiff argues that because the complaint does not allege an unfair insurance settlement practice and the only relation to insurance between the parties is the fact that the contract was for insurance, these holdings are distinguishable from this case. The court is not persuaded by this argument. Simply stated, the plaintiff alleges she has a medical insurance policy with the defendants and the defendants have failed to pay a claim under the policy. The gravamen of the plaintiff's CUTPA claim is that the defendants failed to settle her sole medical insurance claim and, thus, the court finds that she is required to allege a CUIPA violation in order to sufficiently plead a CUTPA violation.
The complaint is devoid of allegations that indicate a general business practice of denying claims based upon the non-issuance of a policy. As stated in Lees, isolated instances of unfair insurance settlement practices will not sustain a CUIPA claim. Lees v. MiddlesexIns. Co., supra,
For the above reasons, the court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to allege a sufficient CUTPA claim. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike count four of the complaint is granted.3
Holden, J.