Page 35 - CLT062121

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 21, 2021 ■ 35

therefore has breached the insurance contract. granted plaintiffs’ motion as to that defense.
Plaintiffs also sued defendants for breach of Defendant’s fourth defense was failure to mit-
the implied covenant of good faith and fair igate damages. The court denied plaintiff’s
dealing in connection with defendant’s al- motion to strike, given that the facts to sup-
leged refusal to participate in the appraisal port this defense are likely in the possession of
process that plaintiffs invoked under the plaintiffs at this stage and could be explored
policy. Defendant filed a counterclaim and through discovery. Defendant’s sixth defense
special defenses, alleging that plaintiffs had was breach of contract. Defendant did not
not disclosed prior fires and resulting damage identify which, if any, provision of the policy
that had occurred. Plaintiffs moved to strike plaintiff breached by failing to disclose prior
all affirmative defenses. The court granted fires. Therefore, the court granted the motion
in part. The court first addressed defendant’s to strike this defense. However, the court de-
second affirmative defense: “Plaintiffs’ claims nied the motion to strike the defense of policy
are barred by the doctrines of waiver and/or exclusions relating to plaintiffs’ failure to dis-
estoppel.” The court held that this assertion close the existence of prior fires. Lastly, the
was too conclusory to meet the applicable court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the
pleading standard; defendant did not iden- defense of misrepresentation, finding it was
tify any facts to suggest that plaintiffs volun- unclear how this defense differed from the
tarily relinquished a known right. The court defense of policy exclusions.

IN WHAT PRACTICES ARE YOUR

COMPETITORS GROWING?

Ask Legal Compass:

at.alm.com/legalcompass

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune