Eugene L. Defronzo et al. v. Peerless Insurance (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The defendant, Peerless Insurance, has moved to strike the First, Second, Third and Fourth counts of the complaint, which allege unfair insurance practices in various ways.   The Second and Third counts of the complaint sound in CUIPA and CUTPA violations respectively and the Fourth count claims a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant.

The plaintiff concedes that the Fourth count involving any fiduciary relationship is not supported in law in Connecticut and therefore is in effect withdrawn.   The plaintiff further acknowledges at argument that the Second and Third counts will be repled and can therefore be stricken with that understanding.

The focus of the defendant's motion to strike is therefore upon the First count, claiming there was a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the insurance contract.   In any contract claiming breach of such a covenant, the allegation of bad faith is to be evidenced by some malevolent or fraudulent intent to mislead or deceive another.  De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 269 Conn. 424, 433 (2004).

The plaintiff's claim of mold infestation in the subject property and the defendant's subsequent inspection and reliance on third-party reports concerning the claimed condition does not constitute in and of itself bad faith.   The fact that the defendant insurer has not accepted the plaintiffs' claimed loss is not a breach of the said covenant of good faith and fair dealing.   However, further allegations of how the defendant-insurer handles the plaintiffs' claim and/or continues to deny coverage for such a claim may substantiate the plaintiff's First count.

This Court adopts the defendant's legal argument from its brief of July 12, 2013, pg. 4:

“A mere conclusory allegation of bad faith unsupported by any factual allegations, is insufficient to sustain a claim of bad faith.”  Algiere v. Utica National Ins. Co., 2005 WL 647808 (Conn.Super.Ct. Feb. 7, 2005).  “Thus, a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not legally sufficient unless a dishonest purpose or sinister motive is alleged.”  Id., Michalek v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 WL 283945, at *2–3 (Conn.Super.Ct. Jan. 18, 2008) (granting motion to strike where no allegations of dishonest purpose or sinister motive);  Crespan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2006 WL 280009, at *7 (Conn.Super.Ct. Jan. 13, 2006) (holding that although the plaintiff's allegations may be more than mere legal conclusion, they still must make allegations demonstrating some sinister motive or dishonest purpose);  Sullivan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1000236, at *2 (Conn.Super.Ct. Mar. 28, 2006) (granting insurer's motion to strike due to lack of allegations of dishonest purpose or sinister motive).

The Court finds that the First count is also legally insufficient under the prescribed standards of Practice Book § 10–39, Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161, 170 (1988), and is therefore stricken without prejudice to be repled by the plaintiffs.

BY THE COURT

V. ROCHE, J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.