Centerbank v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No. 124221 (Mar. 7, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Centerbank v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No. 124221 (Mar. 7, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1975

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1995

DocketNo. 124221

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1975 (Centerbank v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No. 124221 (Mar. 7, 1995)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Centerbank v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No. 124221 (Mar. 7, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1975 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE (#101) The defendant seeks to strike count three of the complaint on the grounds that it does not allege the necessary elements to sustain its claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The motion to strike "admits all well pleaded allegations and all facts provable thereunder." Doyle v. A. P. Realty Corporation, 36 Conn. Sup. 126, 127, 414 A.2d 204 (Super.Ct. 1980), citing Blanchard v. Nichols, 135 Conn. 391,392, 64 A.2d 878 (1949).

Paragraph 12 of count three alleges that the defendant has "committed such unfair claim settlement practices with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice." The court agrees with the plaintiff that this language is broad enough to encompass a number of incidents of unfair practices. The court will therefore deny the defendant's motion to strike.

PELLEGRINO, J. CT Page 1976

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE (#101) The defendant seeks to strike count three of the complaint on the grounds that it does not allege the necessary elements to sustain its claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The motion to strike "admits all well pleaded allegations and all facts provable thereunder." Doyle v. A. P. Realty Corporation, 36 Conn. Sup. 126, 127, 414 A.2d 204 (Super.Ct. 1980), citing Blanchard v. Nichols, 135 Conn. 391,392, 64 A.2d 878 (1949).

Paragraph 12 of count three alleges that the defendant has "committed such unfair claim settlement practices with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice." The court agrees with the plaintiff that this language is broad enough to encompass a number of incidents of unfair practices. The court will therefore deny the defendant's motion to strike.

PELLEGRINO, J. CT Page 1976

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centerbank-v-nationwide-mutual-fire-ins-co-no-124221-mar-7-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack