DocketNumber: No. CV98 0581022
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 4663, 24 Conn. L. Rptr. 351
Judges: WAGNER, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 4/6/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The third count of the plaintiff's complaint alleges that the defendant applied for disability benefits in February of 1996. The policy provides that in order for an insured to obtain disability benefits, the insured is required to be under a "Physicians Care." According to the allegations in the complaint, the defendant's doctor, who signed the claim forms, had not treated the defendant since November 1995, but, rather, based his endorsement of the claim on the defendant's complaints relayed to him over the telephone. In addition, the third count alleges that the defendant collected total disability benefits from the plaintiff even though the plaintiff was not disabled, as evidenced by the defendant's receipt of income in 1996 ($144,539) and 1997 ($137,356).
The allegations in the third count fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the statute. While it could be implied from the allegations that the defendant made a "statement" to the plaintiff, the allegations do not indicate that the defendant intended to defraud or deceive the plaintiff by submitting a statement as part of her claim containing false, incomplete, deceptive or misleading information. The fact that the defendant was not "treated" in early 1996, when she filed her claim, does not necessarily indicate that she was not "under a Physicians Care" in 1996 and 1997, and fails to sufficiently allege an intent to defraud or deceive through a false, incomplete, deceptive or misleading statement. Similarly, the conclusory allegations that the defendant was not disabled because she received a salary in 1996 and 1997 fails to sufficiently allege intent to defraud or deceive through a false, incomplete, deceptive or misleading statement. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike the third count and the corresponding prayers for relief are insufficient at law.
In objecting to the motion, the plaintiff cites cases involving fraud in the inducement of the contract, but fails to identify any authority addressing subsequent fraud relating to an allegedly false or improper claim under the policy of insurance. No authority has been cited permitting the cancellation of a policy based on an alleged fraudulent claim absent language in the policy specifying such relief. Cf. Candido v. WorcesterInsurance Co., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 242978 (July 22, 1997, Hodgson, J.) (considering policy language providing for the voiding of policy upon concealment, misrepresentation or fraud of insured). Rather, it appears to be the prevailing view that "[i]n the case of an insurance contract, the consequence of an alleged concealment or misrepresentation is the forfeiture of a contractual benefit."Rego v. Connecticut Insurance Placement Facility,
Defendant's motion to strike the third count and the first prayer for relief is granted. Defendant's motion to strike certain paragraphs in the Fourth Count is denied.
Jerry Wagner Judge Trial Referee