88 F. Supp. 3d 102
D. Conn.2015Background
- Plaintiff Sylvester Traylor (pro se) sued CMIC (insurer) and Attorney Donald E. Leone, Jr. alleging spoliation of his late wife’s medical and telephone records and a CUTPA claim tied to alleged insurance and defense-firm misconduct arising from underlying medical-malpractice litigation (Underlying Action) against Dr. Awwa/CBHA.
- CMIC insured Dr. Awwa/CBHA and retained Leone to defend the Underlying Action; the Underlying Action was dismissed in Connecticut Superior Court for failure to attach an expert opinion required by statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a).
- Traylor’s Count Eleven alleges intentional spoliation (destruction) of evidence; Count Fifteen alleges violations of CUTPA (derivative of CUIPA claims and hiring firms that would defend cases where evidence would be destroyed).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Traylor opposed, relying chiefly on a transcript excerpt from a 2008 hearing where Leone stated certain records were unavailable and an unspecified CMIC-employee remark asserted in affidavit.
- The district court distinguished pleading-stage plausibility (motion to dismiss) from the summary-judgment standard and found Traylor produced no evidence that Leone or CMIC destroyed records or were involved in destruction, nor evidence showing that, even with the records, Traylor would have prevailed in the Underlying Action.
- Court granted summary judgment for Leone (Count Eleven) and CMIC (Counts Eleven and Fifteen) and ordered both defendants terminated from the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Leone or CMIC spoliated (destroy) Mrs. Traylor’s medical/telephone records? | Transcript/affidavit show admissions or knowledge of destroyed records; CMIC employee remark implies culpability. | No evidence defendants destroyed or caused destruction; transcript refers to third-party (answering service or provider), not CMIC; affidavit lacks identifying proof. | Summary judgment for defendants — no admissible evidence of their destruction or involvement. |
| Was the spoliation done in bad faith (intent to deprive) and causally prejudicial (preventing prima facie case)? | Alleged admissions imply bad faith and prejudice. | Even if records were missing, Traylor would not have prevailed in Underlying Action for unrelated procedural deficiency (no expert opinion), rebutting causation. | Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiff cannot show proximate causation/damages from alleged spoliation. |
| Does CUTPA (via CUIPA allegations) apply to CMIC’s conduct (unfair insurance practices/hiring counsel)? | CMIC engaged in unfair insurance practices, including hiring firms that would defend while evidence was to be destroyed; allegations in complaint meet CUIPA/CUTPA standards. | No evidence CMIC engaged in unfair practices in this case or hired counsel for wrongful purposes; CUTPA claim is derivative of spoliation and fails without evidence. | Summary judgment for CMIC on CUTPA (Count Fifteen) — no genuine issue of material fact supporting unfair-practices allegations or ascertainable injury. |
| Can denial of motion to dismiss on plausibility grounds preclude summary-judgment arguments? | Prior denial of motion to dismiss forecloses re-argument at summary judgment. | Motion to dismiss standard (plausibility) differs from summary judgment (no genuine issue of material fact); denial at pleading stage does not preclude summary-judgment dismissal. | Court: motion-to-dismiss denial does not bar summary-judgment disposition; summary judgment appropriate here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment standard and allocation of burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine-issue and scintilla standards for summary judgment)
- Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 280 Conn. 225 (elements and causation/presumption framework for intentional spoliation under Connecticut law)
- Fabri v. United Technologies Int’l, Inc., 387 F.3d 109 (CUTPA/CUIPA factors and unfair-practice analysis)
- Marinos v. Poirot, 308 Conn. 706 (affirming summary judgment on CUTPA where plaintiff failed to show ascertainable loss)