INSURANCE COVERAGE: Court holds that plaintiff lacks standing to bring direct claims against insurance company as plaintiff is not a named insured nor an intended third-party beneficiary and there has been no claim for subrogation or a final judgment entered regarding liability

Overview of the Case

The defendant, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, moves to dismiss several counts of the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff brought this action against Progressive, GL Transport, LLC, and the individual driver regarding an outstanding bill for $38,456.72. This bill relates to a motor vehicle incident involving a dump truck owned by GL Transport, LLC, which was driven by the individual defendant. The driver lost control of the truck and drove off the roadway. The plaintiff, Modzelewski’s Recovery and Repair, Inc., was summoned to this accident to assist with the cleanup of the overturned truck and its spilled contents.

The plaintiff alleges that Progressive is the insurer of record for GL Transport, LLC, whose conduct caused the subject accident. The plaintiff further alleges that Progressive agreed to undertake payment on behalf of the insured for “all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by the accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle or long-term lease by the named insured.” Progressive only paid part of the plaintiff’s bill, and the plaintiff now seeks the remaining amount as damages.

Progressive’s Motion to Dismiss

Progressive moves to dismiss the claims for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Progressive argues that the plaintiff lacks standing to assert a claim for violation of CUIPA. Specifically, Progressive contends that the plaintiff is not a named insured nor an intended third-party beneficiary under the pertinent insurance policy and that there has been no claim for subrogation or a final judgment entered regarding liability.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Connecticut Supreme Court provides that the right to assert a cause of action for CUIPA violations through CUTPA does not extend to third parties absent subrogation or a judicial determination of the insured’s liability. The court agrees with Progressive, finding that the CUIPA claim is not viable because the plaintiff has not received a final judgment against the insured and does not have a right via a subrogation action. Accordingly, the CUIPA claim is dismissed.

In regard to the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim, the court points to binding appellate authority which explicitly holds that conduct by an insurance company related to the business of providing insurance can violate CUTPA only if it violates CUIPA. Because the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s CUIPA claim due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing, the CUTPA claim also fails and is dismissed.

As to the plaintiff’s claims for quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, Progressive similarly argues that because the plaintiff is neither a named insured nor an intended third-party beneficiary under the relevant insurance policy, these claims must also be dismissed. The court cites binding authority supporting Progressive’s position, noting that a person or entity that is not a named insured under an insurance policy and who does not qualify as a third-party beneficiary lacks standing to bring a direct action against the insurer.

Accordingly, Progressive’s motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety as the plaintiff lacks standing.

Modzelewski’s Recovery and Repair, Inc. v. George Colon, GL Transport LLC & Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., No. UWY-CV-24-6075474-S, 2024 WL 4750731 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 7, 2024).