Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hurlburt v. Massachusetts Homeland Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

February 23, 2018

MARK R. HURLBURT and MELANIE HURLBURT, Plaintiffs,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Mark Hurlburt and Melanie Hurlburt (the “Hurlburts”) sued Massachusetts Homeland Insurance Company (“Mass. Ins.” or “Defendant”) after Mass. Ins. denied coverage for visible cracking in concrete in their basement allegedly caused by a chemical reaction. Specifically, they allege breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-100a et seq.; and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-815 et. seq.

         Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 11.

         For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         1. Terms of the Insurance Policy

         The Hurlburts live at 119 Pinney Street, Ellington, Connecticut. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1-1. The Hurlburts allege that they maintain a homeowner's insurance policy with Defendant.[1]Compl. ¶ 3. The Hurlburt's Insurance Policy (“Policy”) provides:

         E. Additional Coverages

         * * *

         8. Collapse

a. With respect to this Additional Coverage:
(1) Collapse means an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building or any part of the building cannot be occupied for its current purpose.
(2) A building or any part of a building that is in danger of falling down or caving in is not considered to be in a state of collapse.
(3) A part of a building that is standing is not considered to be in a state of collapse even if it has separated from another part of the building.
(4) A building or any part of a building that is standing is not considered to be in a state of collapse even if it shows evidence of cracking, bulging, sagging, bending, leaning, settling, shrinkage or expansion.
b. We insure for sudden and accidental direct physical loss to covered property involving collapse of a building or any part of a building if the collapse was caused by one or more of the following:
(1) The Perils Insured Against named under Coverage C;
(2) Decay that is hidden from view, unless the presence of such decay is known to an “insured” prior to collapse;

Policy at 40, ECF No. 12-7.

         SECTION I: PERILS INSURED AGAINST

         A. COVERAGE A ‒ DWELLING AND COVERAGE B ‒ OTHER STRUCTURES

1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B.
2. We do not insure, however, for loss:
a. Excluded under Section 1 ‒ Exclusions;
* * *
c. Caused by:
* * *
(6) Any of the following:
(a) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration;
(b) Mechanical breakdown, latent defect, inherent vice, or any quality in property that causes to damage or destroy itself;
* * *
(f) Settling, shrinking, bulging or expansion, including resultant cracking, of . . . foundations, [and] walls . . . .

Id. at 42.

E. Additional ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.