Opinion
FSTCV136017661S
11-08-2016
Lisbet Holt et al. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE (# 144.00)
TAGGART D. ADAMS, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
The defendant moves to strike counts one (a violation of CUTPA), five (fraud), seven (loss of reputation), eight (tortious interference with business opportunities), nine (tortious interference with contractual relationships), ten (market manipulation), eleven (a violation of CUIPA), and twelve (harassment) of the plaintiffs' amended complaint. Essentially, the defendant argues that Judge Tobin previously granted a motion to strike these same claims in the plaintiffs' original complaint and that the plaintiffs' amended counts are still legally insufficient for the same reasons relied on by Judge Tobin.
When a party initially raises a point in a motion to strike at an earlier stage of a proceeding, and subsequently raises the same point again, the law of the case doctrine is frequently applied. See Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86, 98, 439 A.2d 1066, (1982). " The law of the case doctrine provides that [w]here a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided, in the absence of some new or overriding circumstance." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bacon Construction Co., 160 Conn.App. 75, 80 n.6, 124 A.3d 941, cert. denied, 319 Conn. 953, 125 A.3d 532 (2015). " In essence it expresses the practice of judges generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided and is not a limitation on their power . . . A judge should hesitate to change his own rulings in a case and should be even more reluctant to overrule those of another judge." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bowman v. Jack's Auto Sales, 54 Conn.App. 289, 293, 734 A.2d 1036, (1999).
In the present case, the law of the case doctrine applies. The court believes that the issues were decided correctly by Judge Tobin, and the amended complaint does not remedy the initial complaint's deficiencies. As to amended counts one (a violation of CUTPA) and eleven (a violation of CUIPA), the plaintiffs have again failed to allege a general business practice of unfair claim settlement practices. As to amended count five (fraud), the plaintiffs have again failed to allege detrimental reliance. As to amended counts seven (loss of reputation), ten (market manipulation), and twelve (harassment), the state of Connecticut does not recognize these as independent causes of action. As to counts eight (tortious interference with business opportunities) and nine (tortious interference with contractual relationships), the plaintiffs have again failed to allege specific opportunities or relationships that the defendant has interfered with.
For these reasons, the defendant's motion to strike counts one, five, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve of the plaintiffs' amended complaint is granted.