Page 37 - CLT061421

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 14, 2021 ■ 37
Court Granted Defendant’s Summary Defendant Allstate moved to strike an insured’s
Judgment Motion on Basis that claim for bad faith in an underinsurance matter
and was able to show that the insured failed to set
Defendant Clearly Defined Policy Limits forth facts to support a legally sufficient claim for
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
CASE: Thompson v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven dealing. In 2019, the plaintiff, Antonella Faieta,
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6090633 was in a motor vehicle accident due to the neg-
COURT OPINION BY: Abrams ligent operations of an underinsured individual.
DATE: May 18, 2021 • PAGES: 15 After attempting to work out an agreement with
Plaintiff was driving a tractor trailer on Interstate defendant, plaintiff alleged that defendant acted
91 when he was hit by Daniel Allende, causing in bad faith by failing to make a reasonable offer to
his truck to roll on its side and plaintiff to sustain settle. After defendant moved to strike the count,
injuries. Allende was insured by Plymouth Rock arguing that plaintiff had failed to allege facts
Ins. Co., who tendered the policy limit of $20,000 showing intent to mislead, deceive, or defraud, the
to plaintiff. Plaintiff also received over $100,00 court agreed, and dismissed the count.
in worker’s compensation benefits. Plaintiff, after
exhausting all of Allende’s available insurance, LAND USE AND PLANNING
sued J & B Hunt Transport, Inc., as the self-in-
surer of the car that plaintiff was driving. The Property Taking Award Adjusted
underlying policy against which plaintiff made
the claim provided limits of underinsured motor- CASE: Comm’r of Transp. v. Chudy
COURT: Middlesex J.D. at Middletown
ist coverage in the amount of $25,000 per person DOC. NO.: CV-18-6022449
and $50,000 per accident. Defendant filed a mo- COURT OPINION BY: Quinn
tion for summary judgment and the court granted DATE: May 19, 2021 • PAGES: 11
the motion. Defendant claimed that there was no Defendants owned property which was subject
genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff was to a partial taking pursuant to General Statutes
not entitled to recovery of underinsured motorist §13a-73(b) to improve a drainage system. Defen-
benefits as a matter of law because plaintiff has dants were compensated $3,500 for a taking of 620
already recovered benefits in excess of the limits square feet and various easements. Defendants
of the available coverage through the recovery of claimed the assessed damages were inadequate
worker’s compensation benefits. Plaintiff argued and sought total damages of $91,000, which rep-
that defendant produced no policy that would in- resented their appraiser’s assessment of the dimin-
dicate that coverage was less than $50,000. The ished value of their property following the taking.
court disagreed, reasoning that case law supports The court credited appraiser’s testimony, however
that defendant was not required to provide notice did not agree with the plaintiff’s appraiser’s testi-
to itself of an intention to write down their policy mony that the property lacked access to a public
limits. Furthermore, defendant provided a copy road and was landlocked. The court noted the de-
of the forms in which they showed they knowingly fendants had the option to apply for a curb cut
elected lesser limits. Therefore, given that defen- from the public roadway both before and after the
dant properly elected clear limits, the court found taking. The court found the defendant’s requested
there was no genuine issue of material fact regard- $91,000 was unsupported, but awarded defendants
ing the amount of coverage available to plaintiff. an additional $2,000 for the taking.

INSURANCE LITIGATION LAW FIRM CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS

Insurance Company Able To Get Bad Motion to Disqualify Denied where No
Faith Count Stricken In Underinsured Attorney-Client Relationship Formed
Matter Between Defendant and Counsel

CASE: Faieta v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. CASE: Cicchiello & Cicchiello LLP v. Sarris
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6093860 DOC. NO.: CV-21-6137918
COURT OPINION BY: Jacobs COURT OPINION BY: Noble
DATE: May 19, 2021 • PAGES: 5 DATE: May 19, 2021 • PAGES: 13
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune