Opinion
X08FSTCV176032870S
06-29-2018
CITY OF NORWALK v. HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Hon. Charles T. Lee
In this insurance coverage action, defendant Hanover Insurance has moved to bifurcate the trial of, and stay discovery relating to, the second and third counts of the complaint, sounding in breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of CUIPA/CUTPA, respectively, from the first and fourth counts relating to breach of contract.
The court grants the motion to bifurcate as to the trial of the second and third counts in the interest of convenience, the avoidance of prejudice and judicial efficiency. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 243 Conn. 401, 423-24 (1997). The same fact finder shall hear a second phase of the trial relating to the second and possibly the third counts, depending on its verdict in the first phase as to the first and fourth counts. The rationale for this decision is that a finding of no duty to indemnify may preclude the covenant count, Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 308 Conn. 760, 801-03 (2013); and the CUIPA/CUTPA claim, while it may survive a defendant’s verdict in the first phase as to coverage, Tucker v. AIG, Inc., 179 F.Supp.3d 224, 235-37 (D.Conn. 2016), could easily result in the interjection of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence in the first phase of trial, interfering with the jury’s fair consideration of the coverage issues.
The court does not find it convenient or efficient to defer discovery relating to the second and third counts. The claim of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing appears to involve many of the same witnesses and facts as the breach of insurance contract counts, so discovery on these issues should proceed contemporaneously. Although the CUIPA/CUTPA claim involves the additional issue of whether the complained of conduct constitutes a general business practice, there is no point in deferring discovery on the issue because trial of the third count may proceed regardless of the result on the first and fourth counts. Falcone v. Am. Commerce Ins. Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk, Docket No. FST CV 146024174 S, 2015 WL 6405801, at *1-2 (Sept. 24, 2015, Heller, J.) ; Perras v. Allstate Ins. Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV 02 0067400, 2003 WL 178863, at *1 (Jan. 6, 2003, Foley, J.); see also, Thurston Foods, Inc. v. Wausau Bus. Ins. Co., No. 3:15CV14 (WWE), 2017 WL 2174402, at *10 (D.Conn. May 17, 2017), adhered to on reconsideration, No. 3:15CV14 (WWE), 2017 WL 4765646 (D.Conn. Oct. 20, 2017) (decision on bifurcation reserved, discovery on extra-contractual counts not deferred.)
In summary, defendant’s motion is granted as to the bifurcation of the trial into two phases, i.e., contractual and extra-contractual, and denied as to a stay of any discovery.