Pamela Beckstein v. Allstate Insurance Company (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (NO. 108)

The plaintiff, Pamela Beckstein, filed a four-count complaint against the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, on July 26, 2010.   On December 30, 2010, the court, Martin, J., granted the defendant's October 5, 2010 motion to strike count two, which alleged bad faith.   The plaintiff filed an amended three-count complaint on February 16, 2011.   The amended complaint contained the same allegations as the plaintiff's original complaint, but removed the bad faith claim pursuant to the court's December 30, 2010 decision.

The defendant filed its second motion to strike on March 4, 2011.   In this motion, the defendant seeks to strike counts two and three of the plaintiff's amended complaint alleging violation of CUIPA and CUTPA, respectively.   The plaintiff filed its objection on March 11, 2011.   The court denies this motion to strike for the following reasons.

Practice Book § 10–7 states:  “In all cases, when the judicial authority does not otherwise order, the filing of any pleading provided for by the preceding section will waive the right to file any pleading which might have been filed in due order and which precedes it in the order of pleading provided in that section.”   Moreover, “[a]lthough the appellate courts have not ruled on the issue, in numerous cases, the judges of the Superior Court have concluded that the rules of practice preclude a party from filing successive motions to strike when the grounds raised in a later motion could have been raised in the initial motion ․ [A] second motion to strike may be appropriate in limited circumstances.   For example, when a plaintiff, pursuant to Practice Book § 10–44, files a subsequent pleading alleging new facts ․ Additional motions to strike, however, are not allowed when the grounds asserted therein could have been raised in an earlier motion.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Stuart v. Freiberg, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford–Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 04 0200508 (July 9, 2008, Tobin, J.).

In the present case, the plaintiff's amended complaint simply repeats the allegations contained in her original complaint.   No new facts have been alleged.   The defendant should have moved to strike the plaintiff's CUIPA and CUTPA counts in its first motion to strike and failed to do so.   The court notes, however, that:  “The parties may, under our rules of practice, challenge the legal sufficiency of a claim at two points prior to the commencement of trial.   First, a party may challenge the legal sufficiency of an adverse party's claim by filing a motion to strike.  Practice Book § 10–39.   Second, a party may move for summary judgment and request the trial court to render judgment in its favor if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Practice Book §§ 12–44, 17–49.”  Vertex v. Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557, 564–65, 898 A.2d 178 (2006).

There has been no change in the allegations of counts two and three of the amended complaint.   The amended complaint was filed in order to comply with an earlier order of the court.   The defendant has not established any good reason for the court to vary the pleading requirements of the Practice Book. The Motion to Strike is denied.

Cosgrove, J.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.