DocketNumber: No. CV99 036 72 69 S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10944
Judges: SKOLNICK, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/9/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On July 25, 2000, the plaintiff filed a four count amended compliant alleging causes of action against the defendant for breach of contract (count one), bad faith (count two), negligence (count three), and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (count four). On April 4, 2001, the defendant filed a motion to strike counts two, three, and four of the plaintiff's amended complaint on the ground that they are legally insufficient. The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion on April 10, 2001, and a memorandum in support thereof.
"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,
In count two, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant acted in bad faith by failing to fully investigate her claim, tender payment to her and give her a reasonable explanation for its denial of her claim. The plaintiff further alleges that "[a] s a direct and proximate result of the defendant's aforementioned bad faith conduct, which has been engaged in by the defendant for the purpose of unreasonably delaying the inevitable settlement of the plaintiff's uninsured motorist claim when the settlement value of same is reasonably clear and/or to cause the plaintiff to sustain further economic and emotional injuries in order to coerce her into accepting an unreasonably low settlement offer [the] CT Page 10946 plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial monetary losses and damages." (Amended Complaint, count 2, ¶ 21.)
The plaintiff argues that in Palmer v. Allstate Indemnity Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 365117 (January 27, 2000, Skolnick, J.), the court found that allegations virtually identical to hers were sufficient to state a claim for bad faith and, therefore, her claim is legally sufficient. The defendant contends that because the plaintiff fails "to allege that the defendant's offer of settlement was done with a malicious intent, designed to deceive, or was a refusal to fulfill a contractual obligation," count two is legally insufficient as a matter of law. (Defendant's Memorandum, p. 3)
"Every contract carries an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requiring that neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. . . . Bad faith means more than mere negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gutpa v. NewBritain General Hostital,
In Palmer v. Allstate Indemnity Co., supra, Superior Court, Docket No. 365117, this court found that allegations virtually identical to the present allegations of bad faith made by the plaintiff were legally sufficient to support a claim for bad faith. Therefore, in light ofPalmer, and construing the amended complaint in a manner most favorable to sustaining its sufficiency, the plaintiff's allegations set forth sufficient facts to support a claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or bad faith. See also Turner v. AllstateInsurance Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 177471 (December 8, 2000, Mintz, J.) (
In count three, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently processed and handled the plaintiff's claims by failing to tender payment to the plaintiff when it should have known that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation and it had sufficient information to justify such payment, and failing to fairly investigate the factual validity of the plaintiff's claim or effectuate a prompt equitable settlement of the plaintiff's claim. (Amended Complaint, count 3, ¶ 20.) The defendant contends that the plaintiff's claim for negligent breach of contract is legally insufficient as a matter of law because she has not alleged that the defendant owed her any duty. In response, the plaintiff argues that in count three she is not alleging negligent breach of contract, but rather that the defendant was negligent in investigating and processing the plaintiff's uninsured motorist claim. The plaintiff further argues that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to provide an objective and competent investigation and evaluation of her claim.
"The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established: duty, breach of that duty; causation; and actual injury." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd.Partnership,
Construing the facts in count three of the amended complaint most favorably to the plaintiff, the court finds that the plaintiff states a legally sufficient claim for negligence against the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike count three of the plaintiff's amended complaint is denied.
In count four, the plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in count two and further alleges that the defendant's conduct violates the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes §
[I]t is possible to state a cause of action under CUTPA for a violation of CUIPA." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Engelman v. ConnecticutGeneral life Ins. Co.,
The plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of CUTPA and such violation may form the basis for a violation of CUTPA See Mead v. Burns,
In conclusion, the defendant's motion to strike counts two, three and four of the plaintiff's amended complaint is denied in its entirety.
____________________ SKOLNICK, JUDGE