Authored by: Joseph Ciollo
Superior Court – Uninsured Motorist Coverage – Equitable Subrogation
In GEICO Insurance Company v. Strums, GEICO paid Uninsured Motorist (“UM”) benefits to its insured following a motor vehicle accident. GEICO then filed a subrogation action against the defendant who it claimed was negligent in causing the accident and was thus liable to compensate GEICO for the UM benefits which had been paid. The subrogation action proceeded to a bench trial. The defendant asserted that GEICO’s claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence claims. The Court rejected this argument and determined that absent a claim of laches, statutes of limitations otherwise applicable to negligence actions do not bar claims of equitable subrogation, which is what GEICO had asserted in this case. In such an equitable subrogation action, the plaintiff insurer is required to prove that the defendant tortfeasor is uninsured. The Court noted that GEICO did not present any direct evidence that the defendant was uninsured even though evidence regarding her insurance status was likely available. GEICO pointed to circumstantial evidence of such uninsured status, which the Court found to be speculative. The Court ruled that GEICO did not satisfy its evidentiary burden of proving that the defendant was, in fact, uninsured. GEICO also had the burden of proving that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident. Based on the evidence presented by GEICO, the Court concluded that it would be impossible to find, as a matter of fact, that the defendant’s negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the accident without engaging in inappropriate conjecture or surmise. Following the trial, the Court found that GEICO’s claim of equitable subrogation necessarily failed and entered judgment in favor of the defendant.
Superior Court – Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act – Motion To Strike
In Pio v. Berkley Insurance Company, the plaintiff filed suit against his homeowners insurer following a dispute over repairs costs relating to a weather event which caused water damage to the plaintiff’s property. The second count of the complaint alleged that the insurer committed violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”) which in turn violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”). The insurer moved to strike the second count, arguing that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to include allegations that the insurer’s challenged conduct occurred with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice. The plaintiff argued that 1) the “general business practice” requirement applies only to claims predicated on CUIPA, not to so-called “independent” CUTPA claims; 2) in any event, not all CUIPA-based theories require a general business practice for legal viability; and, 3) even if the complaint did not plead a technically adequate CUIPA-based theory, it pleaded “aggravating circumstances” beyond a mere breach of contract sufficient to support CUTPA-based liability. The Court concluded that when a CUTPA claim arises in the insurance context, the analysis is constrained by the legislature’s detailed regulation of insurance practices through CUIPA, which therefore invokes the “general business practice” requirement. Since the second count contained no allegations stating or fairly implying that the insurer engaged in similar conduct in other claims as a pattern or with the frequency needed to constitute a “general business practice,” the Court found this to be fatal to plaintiff’s CUTPA claim. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to recharacterize the second count as an “independent CUTPA claim.” Against this backdrop, the Court found the plaintiff’s “aggravating circumstances” argument to be unavailing. To hold otherwise would effectively nullify the “general business practice” requirement. The motion to strike was granted.
Superior Court – Property Loss – Suit Limitations Period
In Nabi v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, the plaintiff sought homeowners insurance coverage for a property damage claim arising out of a fire loss at his residence. The insurer accepted coverage, made certain payments to the plaintiff, and then notified him that no further payments would be made. The plaintiff filed suit to recover the additional amounts claimed. The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s suit was barred by the two-year suit limitations period contained within the applicable insurance policy. The plaintiff objected to the motion and argued that there were questions of fact as to whether or not the insurer waived the two-year suit limitations period by accepting the claim, providing a written offer and estimate of benefits to be paid, and then issuing a check to the plaintiff for the payment of benefits under the policy. The plaintiff also argued that the insurer waived the two-year suit limitations period when it issued a check listing an incorrect payee before issuing the plaintiff a corrected check several months later. The plaintiff also cited to delays in the construction project as well as ongoing communications with the insurer which occurred past the two year anniversary of the date of loss. The action was filed five years after the plaintiff’s receipt of the insurer’s letter informing him that no further payments on the claim would be issued, which was seven years after the date of loss and five years after the two-year suit limitations period had run. Based on the Court’s review of the evidence, the plaintiff failed to establish that these issues constituted questions of fact with respect to the insurer’s waiver of the two-year suit limitations period and as to whether the insurer was estopped from enforcing the same. The plaintiff did not offer any concrete evidence to demonstrate that the insurer engaged in any conduct that constituted a waiver or which would prevent the insurer from enforcing the two-year suit limitations period. None of the conduct by the insurer demonstrated any waiver of the limitations period merely because the insurer remained communicative and cooperative at every stage of the claims review process up until it issued the letter stating that it had no intention of paying any more money on the claim. The fact that the insurer worked cooperatively with the plaintiff to resolve the claim and then disbursed the necessary funds to him in no way suggested that the insurer acted in a way so as to induce the plaintiff to refrain from filing this action. Insofar as there were delays in the construction project, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that these delays were due to any conduct on the part of the insurer. Given that the plaintiff was able to review the terms of his insurance policy to ascertain what he needed to do to file a claim and proceed through the claims process and given that he presented no evidence to suggest that he was unaware of the terms of his policy or confused as to what his obligations were pursuant to its express language, the plaintiff presented nothing to support his claim that the insurer waived the two year limitation period or was estopped from enforcing it. The insurer’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
