Patricia Seemer et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE (# 111) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

The plaintiffs, Patricia Seemer and Douglas J. Hoffman, have brought this action against the defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) for its alleged failure to pay a claim the plaintiffs made on their fire insurance policy with State Farm.

The plaintiffs' complaint is in three counts alleging:  Counts One and Two—Breach of contract;  Count Three—Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing;  and Count Four—Violations of § 38a–815 and 38a–816(6), C.G.S.—unfair trade practices and § 42–110b, C.G.S.—CUTPA.

The defendant has moved the court to strike Count Four of the plaintiffs' complaint as well as paragraphs four and five of the prayer for relief which seeks attorneys fees and punitive damages.

The basis for the motion to strike is the defendant's contention that in Count Four of their amended complaint, the plaintiffs fail to state a legally sufficient cause of action under CUTPA/CUIPA in that they have not alleged facts sufficient to establish a “general business practice” as required for such claims.   Specifically, the defendant maintains that the plaintiffs have alleged unfair settlement practices only with respect to the handling of their loss.

In their objection to the relief sought in the motion to strike, the plaintiffs do not contest the claim by State Farm that in order to prevail in a CUTPA/CUIPA plaintiff must allege the practices on the part of the defendant as to other insured's claims.   However, the plaintiffs note that it is expressly alleged in their amended complaint that “The Defendant's conduct, as aforesaid, raises to the level of a general business practice in that the defendant has engaged in similar conduct in the handling of its insurance claims and, specifically, engaged in similar conduct in the handling the claims failed [sic] by these plaintiffs arising out of the same, as aforesaid ․” The plaintiffs argue that such language is sufficient to allege a “general business practice” as is required by case law.   See Nation v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2005 WL 2364932, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. CV 040093456 (Sept., 2005) [39 Conn. L. Rptr. 886], as well as several other cases in which the holding was consistent with the plaintiffs' position.   This court agrees with the plaintiffs in this case.

Additionally, the role of the court in ruling on a motion to strike is to “examine the complaint, construed in favor of the plaintiff, to determine whether the pleading party has stated a legally sufficient cause of action.”   Dobbs v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 242 Conn. 375, 378 (1997).   If the facts provable in the complaint will support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied.  Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C., 252 Conn. 623, 626 (2000).   In this case the court finds that the plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to establish a “general business practice” on the part of the defendant.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to strike Count Four and paragraphs four and five of the prayer for relief of the plaintiffs' complaint is denied.

BY THE COURT,

DOHERTY, JUDGE

Doherty, Joseph W., J.