Kisson v. C.G.U. Southern New England, No. Cv00 0069803s (May 8, 2001)
This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5975 (Kisson v. C.G.U. Southern New England, No. Cv00 0069803s (May 8, 2001)) 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.
Opinion
The action arises from a motor vehicle collision occurring on or about April 8, 1997. The plaintiff alleges he sustained personal injuries when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by Edward Lydon and owned by Jason Lydon. It is noted that neither Edward Lydon nor Jason Lydon are parties to this action.
The plaintiff alleges that Edward Lydon operated his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed in violation of General Statute §
The defendant insurer has filed the subject motion to strike, arguing that a claim for relief for double and treble damages is not allowed against an insurer in a claim for uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.,
A motion to strike "admits all facts well pleaded; it does not admit legal conclusions or the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings" (Emphasis omitted.) Id. "A motion to strike is properly granted where a plaintiff's complaint alleges legal conclusions unsupported by facts." Id.
"In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint." Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority,
Upon deciding a motion to strike, the trial court must construe the "plaintiff's complaint in [a] manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency." Bouchard v. People's Bank,
The court has reviewed the written arguments of the parties and agrees with the defendant that the decision in Caulfield v. Amica MutualInsurance Co.,
Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted.
The Court
By Arnold, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5975, 29 Conn. L. Rptr. 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kisson-v-cgu-southern-new-england-no-cv00-0069803s-may-8-2001-connsuperct-2001.