United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO DISMISS [DKT. 17]
Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge.
Jasmine Durham (“Plaintiff”) brings this
three-count action against her automobile insurer
Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Co.
(“Defendant”) for breach of contract; breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and violation of
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
(“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a,
et seq claiming that Defendant improperly denied
coverage under its automobile insurance policy number
843371969-0 for claims she made incident to a collision
between her insured vehicle and an all-terrain vehicle
(“ATV”). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and all other costs and fees. Defendant
moves to dismiss the case in its entirety for failure to
state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The insurance
policy was not filed as an attachment to the Complaint nor
was it filed in support of the Motion to Dismiss.
resides in Middletown, Connecticut. [Dkt. 1-1 (Compl.) ¶
1]. Defendant is an insurance company with a principle place
of business in Rhode Island and is registered with the
Connecticut Insurance Commissioner to do business in
Connecticut. Id. ¶ 2.
early afternoon on October 12, 2014, Plaintiff operated her
vehicle in Meriden, Connecticut, where she collided with an
ATV operated by Damian Lein. Id. ¶¶ 3-4.
Plaintiff sustained. Id. ¶¶3, 4 AND 8.
Plaintiff alleges that such injuries were directly and
proximately caused by Lein's negligence and/or
carelessness. See Id. ¶¶ 6-8. She
underwent invasive medical treatment and diagnostic
examinations and may require future medical treatment
including, but not limited to, surgery and physical therapy.
Id. ¶¶ 9-10.
time of the collision, Plaintiff owned the vehicle and
insured it through Defendant's insurance policy.
Id. ¶ 12. All premiums owed and due had been
paid and the policy was in effect when the accident occurred.
Id. ¶¶ 12-13. Plaintiff's insurance
policy covers damages sustained as a result of an accident
involving an owner or operator of an uninsured or
underinsured motor vehicle. Id. ¶ 14. Lein
either did not have insurance coverage or such coverage was
inadequate to compensate Plaintiff for her damages.
Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff notified Defendant of her
claims on or about October 29, 2014, and Defendant denied
such claims on January 12, 2015. Id. ¶¶
survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In
considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
the Court should follow a “two-pronged approach”
to evaluate the sufficiency of the complaint. Hayden v.
Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir. 2010). “A
court ‘can choose to begin by identifying pleadings
that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth.'” Id.
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). “At the
second step, a court should determine whether the
‘wellpleaded factual allegations, ' assumed to be
true, ‘plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.'” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679). “The plausibility standard is not akin to
a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotations
general, the Court's review on a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) “is limited to the facts as
asserted within the four corners of the complaint, the
documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and any
documents incorporated by reference.” McCarthy v.
Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir.
2007). The Court may also consider “matters of which
judicial notice may be taken” and “documents
either in plaintiffs' possession or of which plaintiffs
had knowledge and relied on in bringing suit.”
Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d
142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993); Patrowicz v. Transamerica
HomeFirst, Inc., 359 F.Supp.2d 140, 144 (D. Conn. 2005).
Although both parties possess, are knowledgeable about and
rely on the insurance policy, as noted above, neither party
filed the insurance policy.
moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) all three counts of the Complaint: (1)
breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing; and (3) the violation of CUTPA asserting
that the claims are not sufficiently plead. The Court
addresses each disputed count in turn.
Breach of Contract
insurance policy “is to be interpreted by the same
general rules that govern the construction of any written
contract.” Zulick v. Patrons Mut. Ins. Co.,
287 Conn. 367, 372-73 (2008). The elements for breach of
contract are (1) formation of a contract, (2) performance by
one party, (3) breach of the agreement by the other party,
and (4) damages. Karas v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 33
F.Supp.3d 110, 114 (D. Conn. 2014); Meyers v. Livingston,
Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn and Kelly, P.C., 311 Conn. 282,
291 (2014); Am. Express Centurion Bank v. Head, 115
Conn.App. 10, 15-16 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
argues that Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing Defendant
breached a duty owed under the agreement. See [Dkt.
17 (Mot. Dismiss) at 8]. Plaintiff has not provided any
language from the insurance policy but instead generally
references the policy. Defendant likewise has ...