Webster Bank, N.A. v. David Hozer et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a motion to strike the fourth count of the plaintiff, Webster Bank's complaint, claiming tortious interference with contractual rights.   Webster Bank had an agreement with the defendant Hozer in order to protect itself from certain competition, solicitation and disclosure of confidential information to competitors like Metlife Securities.   Webster claims that Hozer and MetLife breached these covenants contained within the said agreement and therefore are liable under the fourth count.  (See Consent Injunction, dated February 25, 2013.)

There is a wide range of conduct that may fall within the parameters of tortious interference with contractual rights and therefore such claims may be legally sufficient on their face to survive a motion to strike.  American Diamond Exchange v. Alpert, 101 Conn.App. 83, 91 (2007).   The plaintiff's claim is made with sufficient specificity in order to survive this motion to strike.  Herman v. Endriss, 187 Conn. 374, 377 (1992).

Therefore, the defendant's motion to strike is denied.

BY THE COURT

V. ROCHE, J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.