Flynn v. Phys. Health Serv. of Ct, Inc., No. Cv95 31 89 78 S (Jul. 24, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Flynn v. Phys. Health Serv. of Ct, Inc., No. Cv95 31 89 78 S (Jul. 24, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5149-DDDD

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1996

DocketNo. CV95 31 89 78 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5149-DDDD (Flynn v. Phys. Health Serv. of Ct, Inc., No. Cv95 31 89 78 S (Jul. 24, 1996)) 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

Flynn v. Phys. Health Serv. of Ct, Inc., No. Cv95 31 89 78 S (Jul. 24, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5149-DDDD (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE #117 The motion to strike the third count sounding in CUTPA/CUIPA is granted. A review of paragraph 21 of plaintiff's revised complaint dated June 19, 1995 convinces the court that the claims contained therein are Connecticut General Statutes § 38a-816 (6) violations, not § 38a-816 (1) violations, and accordingly require more than a single act of insurance misconduct. Mead v.Burns, 193 Conn. 651, 659; Lees v. Middlesex Insurance Co.,229 Conn. 842, 849. The attempts to comply with these cases by the allegations of paragraph 24 and paragraph 25 of the same count fail as those paragraphs contain mere conclusions.

The motion to strike the fourth count sounding in CUTPA is likewise granted. That count does not allege facts to establish a separate cause of action under CUTPA, but rather states mere conclusions.

Finally, the motion to strike paragraph 4 of the prayer for relief is likewise granted. That paragraph seeks damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110 et seq. and § CT Page 5149-EEEE 38-816 et seq., CUTPA and CUIPA, As the court has struck those allegations claims, the relief sought under them must be struck also.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE #117 The motion to strike the third count sounding in CUTPA/CUIPA is granted. A review of paragraph 21 of plaintiff's revised complaint dated June 19, 1995 convinces the court that the claims contained therein are Connecticut General Statutes § 38a-816 (6) violations, not § 38a-816 (1) violations, and accordingly require more than a single act of insurance misconduct. Mead v.Burns, 193 Conn. 651, 659; Lees v. Middlesex Insurance Co.,229 Conn. 842, 849. The attempts to comply with these cases by the allegations of paragraph 24 and paragraph 25 of the same count fail as those paragraphs contain mere conclusions.

The motion to strike the fourth count sounding in CUTPA is likewise granted. That count does not allege facts to establish a separate cause of action under CUTPA, but rather states mere conclusions.

Finally, the motion to strike paragraph 4 of the prayer for relief is likewise granted. That paragraph seeks damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110 et seq. and § CT Page 5149-EEEE 38-816 et seq., CUTPA and CUIPA, As the court has struck those allegations claims, the relief sought under them must be struck also.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5149-DDDD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-phys-health-serv-of-ct-inc-no-cv95-31-89-78-s-jul-24-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack