Napolitano v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 053358 (Mar. 25, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Napolitano v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 053358 (Mar. 25, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 2165

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 25, 1991

DocketNo. 053358

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 2165 (Napolitano v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 053358 (Mar. 25, 1991)) 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

Napolitano v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 053358 (Mar. 25, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 2165 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant, David Carter (Carter) moves to strike count three of the plaintiffs' amended complaint on the ground that CT Page 2166 the allegations contained in count three are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against him.

The third count of the plaintiffs' amended complaint, however, is directed at both defendants, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) and David Carter.

A complaint is confusing and not amenable to a motion to strike when it combines in a single count, separate causes of action against multiple defendants. See Rowe v. Gordon, 209 Conn. 273,279 (1988). A proper way to cure any confusion is to file a motion to revise not a motion to strike. Id. Moreover, a motion to strike directed at particular paragraphs of a complaint is improper. Northrup v. Town of Clinton, 14 Conn. Sup. 28, 31 (1946).

Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

McDonald, J.

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