Traylor v. Awwa, 899 F. Supp. 2d 216

Traylor sues CMIC and others over his wife Roberta Traylor's death and related lawsuits against her doctors.
CMIC allegedly insured Dr. Awwa and CBHA and allegedly destroyed his wife’s medical records.
The Third Amended Complaint asserts numerous state and federal claims, including § 46a-64, § 1983, RICO, CUTPA, and others.
CMIC moves to dismiss Counts One, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, and Fifteen under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards and allows CMIC pro se considerations for other counts to be reviewed separately.
The court ultimately grants in part and denies in part the motion, dismissing several counts against CMIC but allowing Counts Eleven and Fifteen to proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Private right of action under § 46a-64(a)	Traylor (CMIC) contends private action exists for § 46a-64(a)(1)-(2).	CMIC argues § 46a-64(a) provides no private action and CMIC is not a place of public accommodation.	Count One dismissal: no private action and CMIC not a place of public accommodation.
Negligent misrepresentation claim against CMIC	CMIC allegedly misrepresented facts knowingly or recklessly.	No factual basis for misrepresentation by CMIC is alleged.	Count Four dismissed as to CMIC.
Negligence claim against CMIC	CMIC owed a duty to disclose records to Traylor.	No relationship or duty between CMIC and Traylor shown.	Count Five dismissed as to CMIC.
§ 1983 Due Process and Equal Protection against CMIC	CMIC acted under color of state law affecting rights.	CMIC is not a state actor and did not act under color of law.	Counts Seven and Eight dismissed as to CMIC.
Spoliation of evidence and CUTPA viability	CMIC’s involvement in destroying records supports spoliation and unfair insurance practices.	Spoliation and CUIPA/CUIPA-based claims lack private actions or proper pleading.	Count Eleven (spoliation) and Count Fifteen (CUTPA) survive as to CMIC; others dismissed.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (rejects bare legal conclusions; requires plausibility)
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1974) (standard for motion to dismiss with pleadings)
Yale New Haven Hosp., 727 F. Supp. 784 (D. Conn. 1990) (test on whether plaintiff may offer evidence at summary stage)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings receive liberal construction)
Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1994) (interpret pro se complaints to raise strongest arguments)
Nazami v. Patrons Mut. Ins. Co., 280 Conn. 619 (Conn. 2006) (pleading requirements for fraudulent conduct)
Campbell v. Town of Plymouth, 74 Conn. App. 67 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002) (fraud-related statutes; limitations considerations)
Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 28 Conn. App. 660 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992) (CUIPA private actions via CUTPA; general business practice not shown)
Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2001) (CUIPA private action limitations under CUTPA avenue)
Glynn v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 297 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D. Conn. 2003) (CUIPA does not provide private right of action)
Nazami v. Patrons Mut. Ins. Co., 280 Conn. 619 (Conn. 2006) (fraud elements; Rule 9(b) specificity; silence exception)