224 Conn.App. 838
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- The plaintiffs, Christopher S. Travinski and Lena L. Travinski, filed suit against several insurance companies after their homeowners insurance claim for property damage due to rot and mold was denied.
- The insurance policy was issued by General Insurance Company of America (G Co.), a licensed insurer in Connecticut; plaintiffs claimed to have interacted only with Safeco Insurance.
- The policy denial was based on an exclusion for losses caused by water damage and rot; plaintiffs contended the denial and coverage status.
- Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of Connecticut statutory trade, insurance, and unauthorized insurer acts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding no genuine dispute that G Co. issued the policy, no contract or statutory violations, and that certain defendants were not unlicensed insurers.
- On appeal, plaintiffs challenged summary judgment on breach of contract, statutory claims, and the court’s refusal to require certain defendants to post a bond as purported unauthorized insurers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a genuine issue regarding which insurer issued the policy? | Plaintiffs only dealt with Safeco, not G Co.; dispute about actual insurer. | Policy and evidence show G Co. issued/denied claim; plaintiffs offer no contrary proof. | No genuine dispute; G Co. issued the policy, summary judgment proper. |
| Was breach of contract claim viable given timing and coverage denial? | Plaintiffs allege contract breach over claim denial. | Claim denied per contract exclusion, action time-barred by suit limitation. | Claim time-barred, and no covered loss under policy. |
| Were Safeco, Liberty Mutual, and Liberty Mutual Holding unauthorized insurers under CUIA? | These companies acted as unlicensed insurers in Connecticut. | Policy not issued by these entities; G Co. is licensed in Connecticut. | No genuine issue; these entities are not unauthorized insurers. |
| Should defendants have to post a bond as unauthorized insurers under §38a-27? | Entities must post bond before summary judgment as unauthorized insurers. | Not unauthorized insurers as they didn’t issue the policy. | No bond required; statute doesn’t apply to these entities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn. 304 (Ct. 2013) (burden of proof in summary judgment shifts once moving party shows lack of genuine issue)
- Capstone Building Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 308 Conn. 760 (Ct. 2013) (bad faith not actionable absent wrongful policy denial)
- Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 842 (Ct. 1994) (CUIPA requires proof of general business practice, not single instance)
- Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 317 Conn. 602 (Ct. 2015) (CUTPA claims must be based on viable CUIPA claims)
- Zbras v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, 91 Conn. App. 289 (Ct. App. 2005) (false affidavit must be judicially found to affect summary judgment)