DocketNumber: No. CV96 32 93 88
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11392, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 217
Judges: RUSH, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/18/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On February 24, 2000, the plaintiff filed a four-count amended complaint against the defendant asserting breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, recklessness, violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes §
The defendant moves for summary judgment as to the entire amended complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs claims are barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (act), General Statutes §
The Supreme Court "recognizes an independent cause of action in tort arising from an insurer's common law duty of good faith. This cause of action is separate and distinct from the plaintiffs statutory claims. . . . An implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing has been applied by this court in a variety of contractual relationships, including . . . insurance contracts. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Buckman v. People Express, Inc.,
"There is currently a split of authority [in the Superior Court] as to whether a beneficiary of a workers' compensation award can sue an insurance carrier for bad faith handling of the worker's claims.2 One line of reasoning holds that the exclusivity principle of workers compensation does not apply because the alleged intentional bad faith handling of a workers' compensation claim by an insurance company does not arise during the course of employment, but rather occurs after the injury for which the worker is being compensated. . . . This line of cases also generally holds that since the remedies provided for by workers' compensation do not provide redress for consequential damages suffered as a result of an insurer's bad faith handling of a workers' compensation award, further administrative remedies would be inadequate and exhaustion futile." (Citations omitted.) Moran v. Travelers Property Casualty, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 350319 (October 23, 1998, Stodolink, J.) (
"As the majority of the [decisions of the Superior Court] . . . have held, allegations of bad faith on the part of the insurer in handling claims are not governed by the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. Even though the Workers' Compensation Act makes reference to instances of `undue delay' of payment, the Workers' Compensation Act does not adequately address instances where the insurer or employer deliberately and intentionally acts in bad faith in failing to compensate the injured employee." Moran v. Travelers Property Casualty, supra,
In the present case, the court adopts the position followed by the majority of decisions of the Superior Court. Actions against an insurer relating to the insurer's handling of an employee's workers' compensation claim are not barred by the act's exclusivity provision because they do not arise from the course of employment, but constitute injuries resulting from the independent action of the insurer. See Moran v.Travelers Property Casualty, supra, 384; Yuille v. BridgeportHospital, supra, 24 Conn.L.Rptr 555. Therefore, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to the entire complaint on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the actions are barred by the act's exclusivity provision is denied.
The defendant also asserts that in order to allege a legally sufficient cause of action under CUTPA, premised on insurance related conduct, the predicate acts must constitute violations of CUIPA. The defendant then asserts that the plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support the legal conclusion that it engaged in conduct in violation of CUIPA and, therefore, it is entitled to judgment on the CUTPA claim.
"CUTPA, by its own terms, applies to a broad spectrum of commercial activity. The operative provision of the act, §
Count four of the amended complaint alleges a violation of CUTPA predicated upon the violation of five CUIPA provisions, namely §
Summary judgment is granted as to count 3 by agreement of the parties.
RUSH, J