Edson Casseus et al. v. Nationwide Insurance Co. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR REARGUMENT (155.00)

On February 8, 2011 this court issued a memorandum of decision denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing all counts of the operative complaint.   See Dkt. Entries 147.00, 147.86 and 154.00.   The operative complaint has eight separate counts as each of the two plaintiffs alleged an uninsured motorist claim, a claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and claims under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, General Statutes §§ 38a–815 et seq.  (CUIPA) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act General Statutes §§ 42–110a et seq.   (CUTPA).

The overall thrust of the summary judgment motion was that there was no coverage under the uninsured motorist provisions of the applicable motor vehicle insurance policy.   Indeed, the motion itself, the introductory paragraph of the defendant's memorandum in support of the motion and the conclusion of the memorandum all stated unequivocally that the motion to dismiss all counts was based on the ground that there is no available underinsured motorist insurance coverage for the plaintiffs, and since there was no coverage, claims of bad faith, CUIPA and CUTPA violations could not be maintained.   At oral argument there was no mention of any other basis for dismissing the bad faith, CUIPA and CUTPA counts (Counts 3 through 8).

This court denied Nationwide's motion on the coverage (breach of contract) counts (Counts 1 and 2) and, taking its cue from the motion papers, stated “[s]ince Nationwide's motion seeking dismissal of all four (sic, read eight) counts of the complaint is based on its contention that its interpretation of its policy was proper, the motion in its entirety is denied.”

Now, in its motion to reargue Nationwide contends that the court should have dismissed counts three through eight based on other arguments rather than the primary argument of lack of coverage.   The court recognizes that additional arguments for dismissing the bad faith, CUIPA and CUTPA counts were presented in Nationwide's memorandum in support of summary judgment although they were obscured by the oft-repeated contention that the purported lack of coverage was the overwhelming argument for dismissal and the arguments were essentially introduced by a footnote.   These additional arguments were not directly addressed in this court's memorandum of decision of February 8, 2011.   Nevertheless, these arguments will not be addressed now because it was represented at oral argument, and not contradicted, that plaintiffs' discovery efforts on the issue of bad faith, etc had been thwarted by Nationwide's objection which had been sustained by Judge Mottolese “until the coverage issue is resolved.   If coverage is found, motion [by plaintiffs for non-standard discovery] may be renewed.”   Dkt. Entry 139.86.

Therefore, this court denies the defendant's motion for reargument, but orders that Nationwide may renew its motion for summary judgment as to counts three through eight at an appropriate time when discovery is completed and if such a motion will not unreasonably delay the trial scheduled for late this year.

TAGGART D. ADAMS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Adams, Taggart D., J.