Page 13 - CLT112320

NEWS NOVEMBER 23, 2020 ¦ 13

(Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2015) insurer’s] failure appropriately
(viable bad faith claim as to un- to value [plaintiff ’s] medical re-
insured motorist benefits where cords and bills and to give due
defendant allegedly refused to
pay benefits in an effort to evade consideration to all the opinions
of the treating physicians are
its obligations, which “if proven, Some Connecticut courts enough to imply a sinister mo-
is sufficient to establish a refusal tive on the defendant’s part”).
prompted by. . . some interested have not been receptive, Carriers can reduce the risk of
or sinister motive”). often striking such claims bad faith claims being asserted by
ensuring that their investigations
Courts strike common law bad at the pleading stage, into uninsured/underinsured
faith claims raised with underin- while others have begun motorist coverage claims are
sured motorist claims under the applying a less stringent completed promptly and are
less stringent pleading standard well-documented, including
where the claims were based on standard for pleading
bad faith.

the insurer’s alleged mishandling consideration of all information
of the claim, including valuation presented. Timely and detailed
of it. See Beckstein v. Allstate Ins. communication to the claimant
Co., No. CV106005267, 2010 WL regarding the carrier’s position is
5646063, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. critical, including recitation of the
Dec. 30, 2010) (allegations of in- facts on which the insurer relied
surer’s failure to diligently review and process the and the policy language bases for any denial of cov-
claim, adopt and implement reasonable standards erage.
to promptly investigate and resolve claims and Editors Note: Stay tuned for Part II, discussing
pay or offer policy limits insufficient); Cristache increasing bad faith claims in other states across the
v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., No. HHDCV156062434, country.
2016 WL 7134956, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. ¦

25, 2016) (allegations that insurer failed over a Melicent Thompson is a partner with the law firm
period of months to respond to demand for un- of Gfeller Laurie, LLP. She has broad litigation
derinsured motorist benefits not enough to allow experience in state and federal courts spanning
reasonable inference of bad faith). close to 25 years. Her insurance coverage law
In contrast, common law bad faith claims are practice encompasses all areas of coverage advice
more likely to survive a motion to strike where in both the first- and third- party contexts and
they describe, with particularity, a pattern of mis- related litigation services, including declaratory
conduct, including an insurer’s refusal to consider judgment actions, defense of bad faith claims
presented information. See Vincoli v. Hartford and reinsurance matters. She may be reached at:
Underwriters Ins. Co., No. FSTCV095009591S, [email protected].
2009 WL 4845768, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept.
24, 2009) (viable claim for bad faith stated Elizabeth O. Hoff is an associate with Gfeller
through allegations that defendant “failed to con- Laurie, LLP. She has extensive experience as a
duct a reasonable investigation, failed to consider litigator and counselor to insurers and broad
evidence, inappropriately accused the plaintiff insurance coverage experience, which includes
of negligent conduct and refused to credit infor- counseling clients in first- and third-party con-
mation from the plaintiff and the police as to the texts as well as all associated litigation, including
cause of the accident in question”); Kowalchuk at declaratory judgment actions and defense of bad
*5 (denying motion to strike, applying less strin- faith claims. She may be reached at: ehoff@gllaw-
gent standard, finding “allegations regarding [the group.com.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune