Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—01009-SRU Document 66 Filed 12/15/2004 Page 1 of 3
I UNITFI) S'l`;\'liFS l)lS`lRl(`T (_.`{)l.lR`l`
I)I$TRIC`rl` ()]·' (.`(.)NNl·f.(T`l`l(.`UT
.l(.)SI€Pll A`l"l`l.»·\S Ji; l-I_»’\ll\/l .»*\`l"Tl_.»\S ; (`l\··'lL ;\C`Tl()N NO.
I S10} CV Ul 00*} (SRL?)
\ --·‘ 2
l’J\'l-RUNS l\-’lll`l`t.|.»·\L lNSlJR/\N(`.`l-I. l)l·1(.`liMBE.R I4. 2004
(`(}Ml’.··\l\Y ()l·` C`ONN|·QC`TlCl_l'l` :
NIOTION FOR SLClVll\-1ARY.Il.Fl)Gl\/IENT
l)£l[l`(_!l'1Fé l\-·1utt1al lnstiraitee Cantpaity Oi"(.`t)l`lIlt:‘CIlCl.Il. the CiCi"CIldE·lIlt in the above-
captiuned t11C1ttc1‘. moves for Sl1l`I`It'1'IEll‘}·'_il.l(it_§l`llCI`ll. as tllcrc are no gCl1tlil1C issuers Ul`I`I‘1&3lCl‘iEti tact
regardiitg the partiaus 0t`tI1e plai11tit`t`$` complaint alleging violations at`(`.G.S. § 42-ll0.tl1e
Caititeeticttt Uiilair `liatle P1`aet.iccS; Act. ar (.`.(i.S. §38EYl-Si(l1.TllC(i0l1IlCCtiCLlt llittair
Insurance l’i‘aetiees Act. .··‘\s explaiited in more detail in the attaeliect l\-·le1·1·1arai1dum at Law.
I’atrtjms Mutual It15sL1Ya11CC Ccltlpatty Ol"(.`t`|1`ll1LZ'CIiCLll p1`0\-·‘itleti lite dwelling irtsuraitcc to thc
plaintitt}; commencing an July 25. 2002 1`ar the property located at 475 New Britain ,#`\\-·'€I`ILt€.
lla1‘tt`m`ti. Caimectieut. i)£1l.l`UI“t5 T`l.ll‘tilC'1' eaitteadss that the plaiitlillé are pieclttded Item setting
Ilwtlq any elaims ter i·eem-··ery rm a replacement Cost basis as the plaintil`lS have tailed ta enter
into at legally bintiing cwtlttatct l"tJt‘ the 1`epail‘ ulitlte pt‘t`1pCt‘t}-'. l’att‘Ot‘tS Mutual ]11S,u1‘a1‘tcc
SI·l/226677/ltah
un om,. ¤: snzuzv norman nc. m nc. aux aaceec, Hamm, ct 0513440890 ri name; {860} 5a:t-vm? Fax: {$60; 561-mea
Jurln Nu. 58893

l
Case 3:03-cv—01009-SRU Document 66 Filed 12/15/2004 Page 2 of 3
l
(`ampany et`Cp1mectict|t navy-·‘ meves ter summary _iudgt11et1t under varieus legal thearies
explained in mere detail in the attached Memerattdum al`I,atv.
la support thereel`. the deieiidarit represents that the plai11tiI`I°s allege in their cemplaiiit
that the defendant vielated (.`l.£TP.»·\ and C`LlIP.#\. l)iseevery has cstahlished that there is ae
evidence te support the ceticlusien that any alleged impreper practices hy the defendant
etmstituted a general practice el` refusal te pay claims. Because the plainti |`l`s fail te slievv that
the delettdatifs eeriduct constituted a general practice el` refusal te pay claims withput a
reasonable investigation u1it.ler(`l.lll’r\. the plairitit°t`s` claim trader CUTP/\ is legally
lI"`ISLll`l`lClCI`Il. l·`urtliermere. there is me private cause elactitm urtdcr C‘l_?ll’A. il.`llCl'Cl"Ul`C. the
dct`eat·Iam new meves liar summary judgmcrit en said allegatiens el` the plaiatil°t`s` eemplaint.
VVHERICFORE. the deietidaiit I'Il[1\-\·` moves ter summary j udgment cm allegatierts et`
vielatiens et` (j`l_§'l`l".»·‘\ arid (j`l.Zll’A ea the hasis that 110 genuine issue at material Iact er law
exists. and the defendatit is entitled te judgment as a matter el` law, further supported hy the
attached Mc111t_1randt11T1 et" Law.
- g -
tm mm a sxsusr norman nc. ti nc. Bax smaao, Hamid, cr uatsmsgo an Phonei (see} set-mn Fax; (aaai 561-mea
lurk Nc. 58893

_.-_ .. ..
Case 3:03-cv—01009-SRU Document 66 Filed 12/15/2004 Page 3 of 3
|`)EI·`ljN|)ANl`. l’!\TR()NS Mll"l`l_i.»‘\L
I N Sl J RA N C` E C (J Nl P AN Y
He21tl·1e1· .I. :\nlz1111S—Be1m-111
Shelley Reimer Pi`.
i l’.{-). Box 34US9O
H£1l`l.i`Ol‘d. Cl 00134-()8‘~)0
'|`eI. (860) 561-YUTY
l*`a1x {Roll) 561-'FOSX
l".C(l\:‘I`£ll Har No, el24{l*)l
CERTIl`j`_l§A`l`l(-}l`<
l liereby eertit`}-· that a eopy ol`Ll‘1e atbove was mailed vin [LS. X/[oil. postage prepaid. on
Deeember l4. 2004, to the lollowiug counsel t`)1"I'C(.l(}I`LlZ
}\HOl`l`ll;‘}·' (Yheryl llet`t`emz111
Farver & Hei`t`emz111
2842 Old Dixwell :"\\='CI`lllC
l--lomden. CT 065 l S
/`ee/. (203} 2HH-8266
N lleotliei .l. Ad;11n:;—Be111z-111 ml
uw mum at sxzusv norman i=.c. :1 no. Bm 2.402.90. Hamm, et oalsmsgc zi Phone; (asm semen Fax; {asm ss;-was
Juris N0. 58893