United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MICHAEL M. SIROIS and ALICIA M. SIROIS Plaintiffs,
v.
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant.
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiffs
Michael L. Sirois and Alicia M. Sirois filed this action in
state court against their homeowner's insurance provider,
USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”), for
failure to pay for damages to the basement walls of their
home caused by cracking and deterioration in the concrete.
USAA removed the case to this court on July 13, 2016. (ECF
No. 1.) Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract
(Count One) and unfair and deceptive practices in violation
of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 38a- 816 et seq. (“CUIPA”) and the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 42- 110a et seq. (“CUTPA”) (Count Two).
(ECF No. 23.) USAA has moved for summary judgment on the
breach of contract claim, arguing that the insurance policy
at issue did not cover the alleged damage. It also argues
that it cannot be held liable under CUIPA/CUTPA because there
was no breach of contract, or, in the alternative, because
its liability was not reasonably clear. (ECF No. 49.) For the
reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion for
summary judgment is granted with respect to the
plaintiffs' CUTPA claim but denied with respect to the
plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.
I.
Factual Background
The
following facts, which are taken from the parties' Local
Rule 56(a) Statements and the exhibits, are undisputed unless
otherwise indicated.
A.
Damage to the Plaintiffs' Home
The
plaintiffs bought their home in Tolland, Connecticut, in June
of 2010. (ECF No. 51, Defendant's Local Rule 56(a)1
Statement (“Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt.”) at
¶ 1; ECF No. 56-1, Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56(a)2
Statement (“Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt.”) at
¶ 1.) The home was built in 1985. (Def.'s L.R.
56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 2; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at
¶ 2.) Since 2010, USAA has provided the plaintiffs with
homeowners' insurance for the property, under consecutive
policies, each providing coverage for one year. (Def.'s
L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 3; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at
¶ 3.)
In
December 2015, Mr. Sirois noticed a crack in the basement
walls of his home. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at
¶¶ 4-5; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶¶
4-5.) Mr. Sirois noted that the crack “didn't seem
concerning” at the time and that “there was
nothing that would indicate that something further had to be
done.” (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 5;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 5.) In April 2016,
however, Mr. Sirois read an article about the defective
concrete problem affecting homeowners in Connecticut, and,
after doing so, asked an inspector, Dean Soucy, to inspect
the Property. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 6;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 6.) The inspector
pointed out “a variety of faults [and] cracks” in
the foundation walls to Mr. Sirois. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1
Stmt. at ¶ 7; Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 7.)
Mr. Sirois then pointed out the cracks to Ms. Sirois. Ms.
Sirois had not previously noticed any cracks in the
foundation walls. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 8;
Pl.'s L.R. 56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 8.) On April 16, 2016,
the plaintiffs submitted a claim for coverage to USAA.
(Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 9; Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 9.) Following investigation of the
claim, USAA denied the claim by letter dated June 1, 2016.
(Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 10; Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 10.)
B.
USAA's Policies
i.
2010-2014 Policies
The
2010-2014 policies provide the following the following
“Additional Coverage” for “collapse”:
8. “Collapse”. For an entire building or any part
of a building covered by this insurance we insure for direct
physical loss to covered property involving
“collapse” of a building or any part of a
building only when the “collapse” is caused by
one or more of the following:
a. “Named peril(s)” apply to covered buildings
and personal property for loss insured by this additional
coverage.
b. Decay that is hidden from view, meaning damage that is
unknown prior to “collapse” or that does not
result from a failure to reasonably maintain the property;
c. Insect or vermin damage that is hidden from view . . .
. . .
f. Use of defective material or methods in construction,
remodeling or renovation if the “collapse” occurs
during the course of the construction, remodeling or
renovation.
Loss to an awning… foundation, retaining wall…
or dock is not included under items b., c.., d., e. and f.
unless the loss is a direct result of the
“collapse” of a building.
((Def.'s L.R. 56(a)1 Stmt. at ¶ 12; Pl.'s L.R.
56(a)2 Stmt. at ¶ 12; ECF No. 50-1 at 11)
The 2010-2014 policies contain the following definition of
“collapse”:
“Collapse” means:
a. A sudden falling or caving in;
b. A sudden breaking apart or deformation such that the
building or part of a building is in imminent peril of
falling or caving in and is not fit for its intended use.
Damage consisting solely of settling, cracking, shrinking,
bulging or expansion is not covered by this additional
insurance unless it is the direct result of
“collapse”.
(ECF No. 50-1 at 11 (2010-2011 policy), 92 (2011-2012
policy), 154 (2012-2013 policy), 210 (2013-2014 policy).)
ii.
2014-2016 Policies
The
2014-2016 policies contain somewhat different language. The
definition of “collapse” in the 2014-2016
policies drops the last sentence excluding damage consisting
“solely” of “settling, cracking, bulging or
expansion.” The new definition provides simply as
follows:
“Collapse” means:
a. A sudden falling or caving in; or
b. A sudden breaking apart or deformation such that the
building or part of a building is in imminent peril of
falling or caving in and is not fit for its intended use.
(ECF No. 50-1 at 268 (2014-2015 policy), 374 (2015-2016
policy), 439 (2016-2017 policy).)[1]
The
2014-2016 policies also contain the following exclusion:
1. . . . [W]e do not insure for damage consisting of or
caused directly or indirectly by any of the ...