Opinion
No. CV 05-4011430 S
September 23, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE # 101
The plaintiff brings this action against the defendant insurance agency alleging professional negligence on the part of the insurance agency. Essentially the plaintiff alleges that the defendant agency failed to provide coverage for a trailer owned by the plaintiff and caused a tractor to be insured by an insurance company other than that which it requested.
The plaintiff further alleges that the tractor and trailer referred to above was involved in a collision causing the plaintiff to suffer damages as a result of the negligence of the defendant.
The plaintiff's complaint contains three counts. Count one alleges negligence, count two alleges breach of contract and count three alleges a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
The defendant has moved to strike count three on two grounds. First, the defendant claims that professional negligence on the part of an insurance agent cannot form the basis of a CUTPA claim. Second, the defendant claims that a violation of CUTPA alleged against an insurance agent is insufficient unless the plaintiff also alleges that the conduct claimed to violate CUTPA is also a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act. (CUIPA). The court agrees with the defendant with respect to both grounds claimed in support of its motion to strike.
The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that medical malpractice cannot support a CUTPA claim. Haynes v. Yale New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17, 34 (1997). Nor does a claim for legal malpractice support a CUTPA claim. Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Shatz Shatz, Rubicoff Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48, 79 (1998). Only the entrepreneurial commercial aspects of the medical and legal professions are covered by CUTPA. Haynes, supra at 34-35.
There is no reason why the reasoning in Haynes and Beverly Hills Concepts should not be extended to insurance agents. Indeed many Superior Courts have applied such reasoning to professions other than medicine and law including insurance agents. See Krassner v. CPM Insurance Services, Inc. 202 WL 31045963, *2, 32 Conn. L. Rptr 701 (Aug. 9, 2002, Booth, J.).
Additionally, the plaintiff alleges a CUTPA violation which is not alleged to be a violation of CUIPA. Further, the plaintiff does not allege a "general business practice" but rather an isolated instance of an unfair insurance practice.
Those omissions are fatal to the plaintiff's CUTPA claim. See Mead v. Burns, 199 Conn. 651 (1986).
In its objection the plaintiff relies upon the case of Sheltry v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, 247 F.Sup.2d 169 (D.Conn.). However, that case is distinguishable since there was an allegation of a violation of CUIPA. In this case there is no such allegation.
For the above reasons, the defendant's motion to strike the third count of the plaintiff's complaint is granted.
Thompson, J.