skip to Main Content

INSURANCE LAW: Superior Court holds that an alleged inadequate offer to settle UM claim can provide a basis for CUIPA liability

INSURANCE LAW: Superior Court Holds That An Alleged Inadequate Offer To Settle UM Claim Can Provide A Basis For CUIPA Liability

The Superior Court grants a motion to strike a bad faith claim but denies the motion to strike as to a claim pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Insurances Practices Act where it was alleged that the plaintiff had undergone arthroscopic surgery and had medical expenses in excess of $25,000.00, as well as an inability to work and lost wages but where the insurer offered to settle for $12,500.00 where the UM limit was $100,000.00.

The insurer has requested a medical authorization to obtain medical records, and the plaintiff apparently refused to provide that.  The Court strikes a count for bad faith based on an allegation of an intentional refusal to negotiate since there was no allegation to support a claim of dishonest motive or moral obliquity;  however, the Court allows the CUIPA claim to stand based upon allegations that the insurer failed to effectuate a fair, prompt and equitable settlement and did not provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy for the denial of the plaintiff’s claims.

Canino v. Peerless Ins. Co.,  CV 13-6043986-S (Huddleston, J.)(Jan. 15, 2014)

Interested in more information?
Contact us now for experienced and professional legal counsel.

This is Attorney Advertising. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.