DocketNumber: No. CV01 038 12 04 S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10965
Judges: SKOLNICK, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/13/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
"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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)Peter Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates,
The defendants move to strike count three of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the plaintiff's CUTPA claim is legally insufficient because "the plaintiff has failed to allege with . . . the required particularity how or in what respect the defendants' alleged activities are either immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, or offensive to public policy." (Defendants' Memorandum, p. 3.) Specifically1 the defendants argue that the plaintiff has merely "incorporated by reference his allegations regarding legal malpractice and breach of contract, adding a few paragraphs of legal conclusions." (Defendants' Memorandum, pp. 2-3.) The plaintiff contends that count three is "replete with facts that support precisely the type of conduct that CUTPA was designed to address." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 3.)
General Statutes §
"It is well settled that in determining whether a practice violates CUTPA we have adopted the criteria set out in the `cigarette rule' by the federal trade commission for determining when a practice is unfair: (1) [W]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise-in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other businesspersons]. . . . All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three. . . . CUTPA reflects a public policy that favors remedying wrongs that may not be actionable under other bodies of law." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRTDevelopment Corp.,
In paragraph twenty-four of count three, the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the defendants issued a bill for services that "[u]pon information and belief . . . was created only after the plaintiff confronted the defendants about the loss of his residence through the foreclosure and intentionally manufactured a reason to blame the plaintiff in order to cover up their own negligence in handling the file." The defendants argue that because the plaintiff's allegation is prefaced with the phrase "upon information and belief" it is a mere legal conclusion and therefore, insufficient to support a CUTPA claim. In support of their argument the defendants cite Wiacek v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 329601 (March 31, 1998, Radcliffe, J.) ("an allegation based upon reasonable information and belief is properly viewed as a legal conclusion, particularly when the plaintiff has made no attempt to plead facts establishing . . . the alleged CUIPA violation.").
Wiacek is distinguishable from the present case because in that case CT Page 10968 the plaintiff did not state the underlying facts for her claim, but rather merely recited an element of her cause of action prefaced by "upon reasonable information and belief." In the present action, the plaintiff's allegations do set forth predicate facts that support her CUTPA claim and, therefore, they are legally sufficient. The reasoning ofWiacek does not stand for the proposition that an allegation of fact is turned into a legal conclusion by the inclusion of the phrase "upon information and belief." See Ippoliti v. Ridgefield, Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 337600 (August 7, 2000,Moraghan, J.) (
The defendants next move to strike count four of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arises solely from property damage. The defendants argue that Connecticut law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress when such distress arises solely from property damage. The plaintiff contends that he has sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because he "has alleged facts . . . that form a basis for recovery for injury resulting from other than loss of property." (Plaintiff's Memorandum, p. 6.)
"[I]n order to state . . . a claim [for negligent infliction of emotional distress], the plaintiff has the burden of pleading that the defendant should have realized that its conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that distress, if it were caused, might result in illness or bodily harm." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Parsons v. United Technologies Corp.,
In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress resulting from an injury solely to his property and, therefore, he fails to sufficiently allege a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. See Hixon v. Eilers, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. 592937. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike count four is granted.
In conclusion, the defendants' motion to strike is denied as to count three and granted as to count four.
SKOLNICK, J.