fbpx Skip to content

INSURANCE LITIGATION: Superior Court denies motion to dismiss on lack of standing, holding that an issue of fact existed as to whether the alleged insured was insured on the date of the incident

This case arose out of a slip and fall where the plaintiff slipped and fell on Josue Jorge’s property. At the time of the incident, based on communications with a State Farm agent, the property owner believed that he had a policy issued by State Farm that covered this injury. The plaintiff brought an action against Jorge for injuries she sustained. State Farm refused to defend Mr. Jorge, explaining that Jorge was not insured by State Farm. The injured plaintiff and Mr. Jorge agreed upon a settlement for the personal injuries where the personal injury claim would be settled for a stipulated judgment of $300,000. State Farm refused to pay the judgment. The plaintiff sued State Farm for breach of contract. The defendant, State Farm, moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of standing. State Farm argued that since Jorge was not insured, the plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims against it. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the issues raised involved both standing and merits of the plaintiff’s claims. The court found that the question of jurisdiction in the case must be decided after discovery and a full trial on the merits. Blakely v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV18-6081124 (July 15, 2020)